PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

B-1

APPENDIX B: DRAFT PBRR CULTURAL 

RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT

CHAPTER 1 TO CHAPTER 4
	 	

Port Bienville Railroad Environmental Impact Statement

PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY OF

THE PROPOSED CONNECTION BETWEEN

THE PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD AND THE

NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAIL LINE NEAR

INTERSTATE 59, NORTH OF THE NATIONAL

AERONAUTICS AND SPACE

ADMINISTRATION’S JOHN C. STENNIS

SPACE CENTER, PEARL RIVER AND

HANCOCK COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI

PROJECT NO. FRA‐0023‐00(003)/105494

101000‐102000

By J. Howard Beverly, Clayton Tinsley, Megan Koszarek, Ann Keen, and

Ann Wilkinson

Prepared by:

August 2017	 	
	 i	 Project	No.	FRA‐0023‐00(003)/105494	101000‐102000

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

This	report	describes	the	field	and	laboratory	methods	for	and	the	results	of	a	Phase	I	

Archaeological	and	Cultural	Historic	Reconnaissance	survey	conducted	for	the	Mississippi	

Department	of	Transportation,	the	Federal	Railroad	Administration,	and	the	Hancock	County	Port	

and	Harbor	Commission	for	a	proposed	new	freight	rail	line	that	would	provide	a	direct	connection	

between	the	Port	Bienville	Railroad	and	the	Norfolk	Southern	rail	line	near	Interstate	59,	north	of	

the	National	Aeronautics	and	Space	Administration’s	John	C.	Stennis	Space	Center	(Project	No.	FRA‐	

0023‐00(003)/105494	101000‐102000).	This	connection	would	provide	a	second	Class	1	rail	

connection	to	Port	Bienville	and	the	Industrial	Park.	

The	Archaeological	APE’s	boundary	is	defined	as	a	100‐foot	buffer	on	either	side	of	the	proposed	

railroad	segments.	The	segments	total	38.1	kilometers	(23.7	miles)	in	length,	and	the	

Archaeological	APE	encompasses	575	acres	(232.7	hectares).	The	Revised	Port	Bienville	Short	Line	

Railroad	Proposed	Cultural	Resources	Survey	Field	Methodology,	MDO	#	FRA‐0023‐

00(003)/105494	101000‐102000,	MDAH	Project	Log	#03‐082‐16,	(Report	#	TBA),	Hancock	and	

Peal	River	Counties	was	reviewed	and	accepted	by	the	Mississippi	Department	of	Archives	and	

History	(MDAH)	on	May	2,	2016.	

The	Cultural	Historic	APE	is	defined	as	being	first	within	the	boundary	of	the	Archaeological	APE,	

and	secondly	within	75	meters	of	the	Archaeological	APE.	

A	total	of	24	linear	archaeological	sites	were	identified	within	the	Archaeological	APE.	Of	these	

sites,	13	are	not	eligible	for	inclusion	in	the	NRHP,	and	11	have	undetermined	eligibility	statuses.		

The	current	project	will	not	have	an	adverse	impact	to	any	archaeological	sites	recorded	within	the	

APE.	

Three	newly	recorded	historic	resources,	Resources	1,	Resource	2,	and	Resource	3,	were	identified	

during	the	cultural	historic	reconnaissance.	All	three	are	part	of	the	railroad	line	(22Ha767)	built	

specifically	by	Southern	Railway	for	transporting	construction	materials	and	other	material	to	the	

John	C.	Stennis	Space	Center,	a	NRHP	listed	property.	Therefore,	these	are	recommended	as	eligible	

for	listing	on	the	NHRP	under	Criterion	A	for	its	association	with	the	NRHP	listed	John	C.	Stennis	

Space	Center.	
	 ii	 Project	No.	FRA‐0023‐00(003)/105494	101000‐102000

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................1‐1

1.1	 Project	Purpose.....................................................................................................................................	1‐1	

1.2	 Project	Location	....................................................................................................................................	1‐1	

1.2.1	 Segment	11	.............................................................................................................................	1‐1	

1.2.2	 Segment	10B	..........................................................................................................................	1‐1	

1.2.3	 Segment	9	................................................................................................................................	1‐4	

1.2.4	 Segment	8A	.............................................................................................................................	1‐4	

1.2.5	 Segment	7	................................................................................................................................	1‐4	

1.2.6	 Segment	C	(Revised	from	Segments	1‐6)	...................................................................	1‐4	

1.3	 Regulatory	Context	..............................................................................................................................	1‐4	

1.3.1	 Area	of	Potential	Effect	Definition	.................................................................................	1‐5	

1.3.2	 Identification	of	Historic	Properties	............................................................................	1‐5	

1.3.3	 Determination	of	Effect	.....................................................................................................	1‐6	

1.3.4	 Avoidance	Alternatives,	Planning	to	Minimize	Effects,	and	Mitigation	.........	1‐8	

1.4	 Identified	Area	of	Potential	Effect	Definition	...........................................................................	1‐8	

1.4.1	 Archaeological	APE	..............................................................................................................	1‐8	

1.4.2	 Architectural	APE	.................................................................................................................	1‐9	

1.5	 Archaeological	and	Architectural	Investigations	Sponsor	..................................................	1‐9	

1.6	 Archaeological	and	Architectural	Investigations	Goals	.......................................................	1‐9	

1.7	 Personnel	.................................................................................................................................................	1‐9	

1.7.1	 Principal	Investigator	.......................................................................................................	1‐12	

1.7.2	 Field	and	Laboratory	Crew	............................................................................................	1‐12	

1.8	 Background	Research	Dates	..........................................................................................................	1‐12	

1.9	 Field	Survey	Dates	.............................................................................................................................	1‐12	

1.10	 Field	Survey	Conditions	..................................................................................................................	1‐12	

1.11	 Exhibit	Preparations	and	Maps	....................................................................................................	1‐13	

1.12	 Curation	Information	.......................................................................................................................	1‐13	

1.13	 Overview	of	Findings	........................................................................................................................	1‐13	

1.13.1	 Archaeological	Findings,	Conclusions,	and	Recommendations	......................	1‐13	

1.13.2	 Architectural	Findings,	Conclusions,	and	Recommendations	.........................	1‐13	

2.0 Environment ..........................................................................................................................................2‐1

2.1	 Geology	.....................................................................................................................................................	2‐1	

2.2	 Physiography	.........................................................................................................................................	2‐1	

2.3	 Ecology	.....................................................................................................................................................	2‐4	

2.4	 Soils	............................................................................................................................................................	2‐4	
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Table of Contents

	 iii	 Project	No.	FRA‐0023‐00(003)/105494	101000‐102000

2.5	 Drainage	.................................................................................................................................................	2‐13	

2.6	 Prehistoric	Climate	............................................................................................................................	2‐14	

2.7	 Modern	Climate	..................................................................................................................................	2‐14	

2.8	 Flora	.........................................................................................................................................................	2‐17	

2.9	 Fauna	.......................................................................................................................................................	2‐17	

2.10	 Past	and	Present	Land	Uses	...........................................................................................................	2‐17	

3.0 Regional Setting, Cultural History, and Background Research............................................3‐1

3.1	 Introduction	...........................................................................................................................................	3‐1	

3.2	 Prehistoric	Period	................................................................................................................................	3‐5	

3.2.1	 Paleoindian	and	Archaic	Stages	(ca.	10,000	B.C.	to	1,200	B.C.)	........................	3‐5	

3.2.2	 Gulf	Formational	Stage	(ca.	2,500	B.C.	to	100	B.C.)	................................................	3‐6	

3.2.2.1	 Middle	Gulf	Formational	Period	(c.a.	1,200	B.C.	to	800	B.C.)	...	3‐6	

3.2.2.2	 Late	Gulf	Formational	Period	(c.a.	800	B.C.	to	100	B.C.)	............	3‐7	

3.2.3	 Woodland	Stage	(ca.	100	B.C.	to	A.D.	1200)	..............................................................	3‐8	

3.2.3.1	 Middle	Woodland	Period	(c.a.	100	B.C.	to	A.D.	550)	....................	3‐8	

3.2.3.2	 Late	Woodland	Period	(c.a.	A.D.	550	to	A.D.	1200)	....................	3‐10	

3.2.4	 Mississippian	Stage	(ca.	A.D.	1200	B.C.	to	A.D.	1550)	.........................................	3‐12	

3.2.4.1	 Middle	Mississippi	Period	(c.a.	A.D.	1200	to	A.D.	1350)	..........	3‐13	

3.2.4.2	 Late	Mississippi	Period	(c.a.	A.D.	1350	to	A.D.	1550)	................	3‐14	

3.3	 Protohistoric	and	Colonial	Periods	(A.D.	1450‐1798)	........................................................	3‐14	

3.3.1	 The	French	Colonial	Period	............................................................................................	3‐15	

3.3.2	 The	British	and	Spanish	Colonial	Period	..................................................................	3‐16	

3.4	 Historic	Context	..................................................................................................................................	3‐17	

3.4.1	 American	Settlement	and	Antebellum	Period	(1798‐1861)	............................	3‐17	

3.4.2	 Civil	War	(1861‐1865)	.....................................................................................................	3‐18	

3.4.3	 Recovery	and	Postbellum	(1865‐1914)	...................................................................	3‐19	

3.4.4	 Twentieth	Century	.............................................................................................................	3‐19	

3.5	 Archival	Research	..............................................................................................................................	3‐24	

3.5.1	 Historic	Maps	.......................................................................................................................	3‐24	

3.5.2	 Historic	Aerial	Photographs	..........................................................................................	3‐24	

3.6	 Background	Research	......................................................................................................................	3‐24	

3.6.1	 Previous	Surveys	................................................................................................................	3‐24	

3.6.2	 Previously	Recorded	Archaeological	sites	...............................................................	3‐24	

3.6.3	 Previously	Recorded	Architectural	Sites	..................................................................	3‐35	

4.0 Research Design and Methodology................................................................................................4‐1

4.1	 Purpose	....................................................................................................................................................	4‐1	

4.2	 Archaeological	Research	Techniques	..........................................................................................	4‐1	

4.2.1	 Field	Methods	Design	.........................................................................................................	4‐1	

4.2.2	 Surface	Inspection	...............................................................................................................	4‐1	

4.2.3	 Shovel	Test	Probes	..............................................................................................................	4‐2	

4.2.4	 Auger	Probes	..........................................................................................................................	4‐2	

4.2.5	 Areas	of	Special	Consideration	.......................................................................................	4‐2	
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Table of Contents

	 iv	 Project	No.	FRA‐0023‐00(003)/105494	101000‐102000

4.2.5.1	 Hancock	Bombing	and	Gunnery	Range	.............................................	4‐2	

4.2.5.2	 Northern	Section	of	Railroad	Tracks	..................................................	4‐3	

4.2.5.3	 Wetlands	........................................................................................................	4‐3	

4.2.5.4	 Previously	Surveyed	Areas	.....................................................................	4‐3	

4.2.6	 Site	Definition	........................................................................................................................	4‐3	

4.3	 Architectural	Survey	Techniques	..................................................................................................	4‐4	

4.3.1	 Archival	and	Field	Research	............................................................................................	4‐4	

4.3.2	 Historic	Overview	and	Historic	Context	.....................................................................	4‐4	

4.3.3	 Descriptions	and	Evaluation	of	Historic	Properties	..............................................	4‐5	

4.4	 Background	Records	Check	.............................................................................................................	4‐5	

4.5	 National	Register	Evaluation	..........................................................................................................	4‐5	

4.5.1	 Evaluating	Archaeological	Sites	.....................................................................................	4‐5	

4.5.2	 Evaluating	Historic	Resources	........................................................................................	4‐5	

5.0 Results of Archaeological Investigations .....................................................................................5‐1

5.1	 Location	and	Field	Conditions	........................................................................................................	5‐1	

5.2	 Findings	....................................................................................................................................................	5‐1	

5.2.1	 Shovel	Test	Probe	Results	................................................................................................	5‐1	

5.2.2	 Linear	Sites	Documented	..................................................................................................	5‐1	

5.2.2.1	 Site	22Ha171	..............................................................................................	5‐68	

5.2.2.2	 Site	22Ha181	..............................................................................................	5‐72	

5.2.2.3	 Site	22Ha766	..............................................................................................	5‐76	

5.2.2.4	 Site	22Ha767	..............................................................................................	5‐80	

5.2.2.5	 Site	22Ha768	..............................................................................................	5‐84	

5.2.2.6	 Site	22Ha769	..............................................................................................	5‐88	

5.2.2.7	 Site	22Ha770	..............................................................................................	5‐92	

5.2.2.8	 Site	22Ha771	..............................................................................................	5‐96	

5.2.2.9	 Site	22Ha772	..............................................................................................	5‐99	

5.2.2.10	 Site	22Ha773	...........................................................................................	5‐103	

5.2.2.11	 Site	22Ha774	...........................................................................................	5‐107	

5.2.2.12	 Site	22Ha775	...........................................................................................	5‐111	

5.2.2.13	 Site	22Ha776	...........................................................................................	5‐114	

5.2.2.14	 Site	22Ha777	...........................................................................................	5‐117	

5.2.2.15	 Site	22Ha778	...........................................................................................	5‐120	

5.2.2.16	 Site	22Ha779	...........................................................................................	5‐123	

5.2.2.17	 Site	22Ha780	...........................................................................................	5‐127	

5.2.2.18	 Site	22Ha781	...........................................................................................	5‐130	

5.2.2.19	 Site	22Ha782	...........................................................................................	5‐134	

5.2.2.20	 Site	22Ha783	...........................................................................................	5‐138	

5.2.2.21	 Site	22Pr158	............................................................................................	5‐169	

5.2.2.22	 Site	22Pr180	............................................................................................	5‐173	

5.2.2.23	 Site	22Pr967	............................................................................................	5‐177	

5.2.2.24	 Site	22Pr968	............................................................................................	5‐181	

5.3	 Recommendations	and	Conclusions	.......................................................................................	5‐185	
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Table of Contents

	 v	 Project	No.	FRA‐0023‐00(003)/105494	101000‐102000

6.0 Architectural Survey ...........................................................................................................................6‐1

6.1	 Findings	....................................................................................................................................................	6‐1	

6.1.1	 Resource	1	...............................................................................................................................	6‐6	

6.1.1.1	 Description	....................................................................................................	6‐6	

6.1.1.2	 Recommendation	........................................................................................	6‐6	

6.1.2	 Resource	2	.............................................................................................................................	6‐10	

6.1.2.1	 Description	..................................................................................................	6‐10	

6.1.2.2	 Recommendation	......................................................................................	6‐10	

6.1.3	 Resource	3	.............................................................................................................................	6‐14	

6.1.3.1	 Description	..................................................................................................	6‐14	

6.1.3.2	 Recommendation	......................................................................................	6‐14	

6.2	 Results	....................................................................................................................................................	6‐18	

7.0 Findings, Recommendations, and Conclusions .........................................................................7‐1

7.1	 Introduction	...........................................................................................................................................	7‐1	

7.2	 Archaeological	Findings,	Conclusions,	and	REcommendations	.......................................	7‐1	

7.3	 Architectural	Findings,	conclusions,	and	recommendations	.............................................	7‐1	

8.0 References...............................................................................................................................................8‐1

LIST OF TABLES

Table	1‐1:	Weather	Information	.................................................................................................................................	1‐12	

Table	1‐2:	Archaeological	Sites	....................................................................................................................................	1‐14	

Table	1‐3:	Newly	Documented	Historic	Properties	............................................................................................	1‐14	

Table	2‐1:	Land	Use	Classification	for	the	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	...........................................................	2‐18	

Table	3‐1:	Paleoindian	and	Archaic	cultural	chronology	for	Mississippi	(based	on	McGahey	1996,	

1997,	and	2004)	...................................................................................................................................................................	3‐1	

Table	3‐2:	Chronology	of	Native	American	culture	on	the	Extreme	Eastern	Louisiana	Coast,	ca.	3000	

B.C.	to	A.D.	1800	...................................................................................................................................................................	3‐2	

Table	3‐3:	Chronology	of	Native	American	Culture	on	the	Eastern	Mississippi	Coast,	ca.	2000	B.C.	to	

A.D.	1775	.................................................................................................................................................................................	3‐3	

Table	3‐4:	Paleoindian	and	Archaic	Cultural	Chronology	for	Southwest	Alabama	(based	on	several	

sources,	including	Anderson	and	Sassaman	1996,	McGahey	2004,	and	Walthall	1980)	......................	3‐4	

Table	3‐5:	BLM‐GLO	Summary	Information	..........................................................................................................	3‐25	

Table	3‐6:	USGS	Historic	Maps	Summary	Information	......................................................................................	3‐26	

Table	3‐7:	Previously	Surveys	......................................................................................................................................	3‐29	

Table	3‐8:	Previously	Recorded	Archaeological	Sites	........................................................................................	3‐33	

Table	3‐9:	Previously	Recorded	Architectural	Sites	...........................................................................................	3‐36	

Table	4‐1:	Division	of	Alignment...................................................................................................................................	4‐2	

Table	5‐1:	Archaeological	Sites	.................................................................................................................................	5‐185	

Table	6‐1:	Newly	Documented	Historic	Properties	............................................................................................	6‐18	
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Table of Contents

	 vi	 Project	No.	FRA‐0023‐00(003)/105494	101000‐102000

Table	7‐1:	Archaeological	Sites	......................................................................................................................................	7‐2	

Table	7‐2:	Newly	Documented	Historic	Properties	..............................................................................................	7‐2	

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure	1‐1:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	within	Pearl	River	and	Hancock	Counties	..................	1‐2	

Figure	1‐2:	Proposed	PBRR	Segments	........................................................................................................................	1‐3	

Figure	1‐3:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	on	USGS	Topographical	Maps	........................................	1‐10	

Figure	1‐4:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	on	Aerial	Photograph	........................................................	1‐11

Figure	1‐5:	Pearl	River	Gauge	Height	and	Flood	Stage	from	April	12	to	June	16,	2016	.......................	1‐13	

Figure	2‐1:	Geology	of	the	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	............................................................................................	2‐2	

Figure	2‐2:	Physiography	of	the	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	................................................................................	2‐3	

Figure	2‐3:	Level	III	Ecoregions	of	the	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	...................................................................	2‐5	

Figure	2‐4:	Level	IV	Ecoregions	of	the	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	....................................................................	2‐6	

Figure	2‐5:	Soils	Inside	the	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	..........................................................................................	2‐7	

Figure	2‐6:	Hydrology	of	the	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	....................................................................................	2‐15	

Figure	2‐7:	Historic	Forest	Habitation	of	the	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	.....................................................	2‐16	

Figure	2‐8:	Land	Use	Classification	of	the	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	...........................................................	2‐19	

Figure	3‐1:	Historic	Logging	Railroads	(after	Mississippi	Rails	2016)	.......................................................	3‐21	

Figure	3‐2:	Location	of	Former	Hancock	County	Bombing	and	Gunnery	Range	....................................	3‐23	

Figure	3‐3:	Previous	Surveys	on	USGS	Topographical	Maps	..........................................................................	3‐27	

Figure	3‐4:	Previous	Surveys	on	Aerial	Photograph	...........................................................................................	3‐28	

Figure	3‐5:	Previously	Recorded	Architectural	Sites	on	USGS	Topographical	Maps	............................	3‐37	

Figure	3‐6:	Previously	Recorded	Architectural	Sites	on	Aerial	Photograph	............................................	3‐38	

Figure	5‐1:	Archaeological	APE	Location	on	USGS	7.5’	Quadrangle	Maps...................................................	5‐2	

Figure	5‐2:	Archaeological	APE	Location	on	Aerial	Photograph	.....................................................................	5‐3	

Figure	5‐3:	Example	of	Wetlands,	Near	S4‐T2‐12..................................................................................................	5‐4	

Figure	5‐4:	Example	of	Wetland,	Near	S4‐T2‐111	.................................................................................................	5‐4	

Figure	5‐5:	Example	of	a	Pine	Stand,	Near	S6‐T2‐125	.........................................................................................	5‐5	

Figure	5‐6:	Example	of	a	Pine	Stand,	Near	S6‐T1‐91	............................................................................................	5‐5	

Figure	5‐7:	Example	of	Inundated	Low	Lying	Area	Adjacent	to	Wetland,	Near	S4‐T2‐244	.................	5‐6	

Figure	5‐8:	Example	of	Inundated	Low	Lying	Area	Adjacent	to	Wetland,	Near	S6‐T2‐3	......................	5‐6	

Figure	5‐9:	Example	of	a	Water	Filled	STP,	S6‐T1‐94	..........................................................................................	5‐7	

Figure	5‐10:	Example	of	a	Water	Filled	STP,	S4‐T2‐201	.....................................................................................	5‐7	

Figure	5‐11:	Example	of	an	Unpaved	Private	Access	Road,	Bombing	Range	Road	..................................	5‐8	

Figure	5‐12:	Example	of	a	Paved	Public	Road,	Main	Line	Road	.......................................................................	5‐8	

Figure	5‐13:	Typical	Condition	along	the	Norfolk	Southern	Railroad	Spur	“NASA	Turn”	....................	5‐9	

Figure	5‐14:	Typical	Condition	along	Port	Bienville	Railroad	..........................................................................	5‐9	

Figure	5‐15:	Example	of	Standing	Water	in	a	Recently	Harvested	Pine	Stand,	Near	S4‐T1‐1	..........	5‐10	

Figure	5‐16:	Example	of	a	Recently	Harvested	Pine	Stand,	Near	S4‐T2‐79	..............................................	5‐10	

Figure	5‐17:	Example	of	Thick	Undergrowth,	Near	S4‐T2‐125	.....................................................................	5‐11	

Figure	5‐18:	Example	of	Thick	Undergrowth,	Near	S4‐T2‐250	.....................................................................	5‐11	

Figure	5‐19:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	1	of	54	......	5‐12	

Figure	5‐20:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	2	of	54	......	5‐13	
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Table of Contents

	 vii	 Project	No.	FRA‐0023‐00(003)/105494	101000‐102000

Figure	5‐21:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	3	of	54	......	5‐14	

Figure	5‐22:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	4	of	54	......	5‐15	

Figure	5‐23:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	5	of	54	......	5‐16	

Figure	5‐24:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	6	of	54	......	5‐17	

Figure	5‐25:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	7	of	54	......	5‐18	

Figure	5‐26:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	8	of	54	......	5‐19	

Figure	5‐27:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	9	of	54	......	5‐20	

Figure	5‐28:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	10	of	54	....	5‐21	

Figure	5‐29:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	11	of	54	....	5‐22	

Figure	5‐30:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	12	of	54	....	5‐23	

Figure	5‐31:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	13	of	54	....	5‐24	

Figure	5‐32:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	14	of	54	....	5‐25	

Figure	5‐33:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	15	of	54	....	5‐26	

Figure	5‐34:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	16	of	54	....	5‐27	

Figure	5‐35:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	17	of	54	....	5‐28	

Figure	5‐36:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	18	of	54	....	5‐29	

Figure	5‐37:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	19	of	54	....	5‐30	

Figure	5‐38:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	20	of	54	....	5‐31	

Figure	5‐39:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	21	of	54	....	5‐32	

Figure	5‐40:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	22	of	54	....	5‐33	

Figure	5‐41:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	23	of	54	....	5‐34	

Figure	5‐42:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	24	of	54	....	5‐35	

Figure	5‐43:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	25	of	54	....	5‐36	

Figure	5‐44:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	26	of	54	....	5‐37	

Figure	5‐45:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	27	of	54	....	5‐38	

Figure	5‐46:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	28	of	54	....	5‐39	

Figure	5‐47:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	29	of	54	....	5‐40	

Figure	5‐48:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	30	of	54	....	5‐41	

Figure	5‐49:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	31	of	54	....	5‐42	

Figure	5‐50:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	32	of	54	....	5‐43	

Figure	5‐51:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	33	of	54	....	5‐44	

Figure	5‐52:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	34	of	54	....	5‐45	

Figure	5‐53:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	35	of	54	....	5‐46	

Figure	5‐54:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	36	of	54	....	5‐47	

Figure	5‐55:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	37	of	54	....	5‐48	

Figure	5‐56:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	38	of	54	....	5‐49	

Figure	5‐57:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	39	of	54	....	5‐50	

Figure	5‐58:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	40	of	54	....	5‐51	

Figure	5‐59:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	41	of	54	....	5‐52	

Figure	5‐60:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	42	of	54	....	5‐53	

Figure	5‐61:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	43	of	54	....	5‐54	

Figure	5‐62:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	44	of	54	....	5‐55	

Figure	5‐63:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	45	of	54	....	5‐56	

Figure	5‐64:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	46	of	54	....	5‐57	

Figure	5‐65:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	47	of	54	....	5‐58	
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Table of Contents

	 viii	 Project	No.	FRA‐0023‐00(003)/105494	101000‐102000

Figure	5‐66:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	48	of	54	....	5‐59	

Figure	5‐67:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	49	of	54	....	5‐60	

Figure	5‐68:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	50	of	54	....	5‐61	

Figure	5‐69:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	51	of	54	....	5‐62	

Figure	5‐70:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	52	of	54	....	5‐63	

Figure	5‐71:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	53	of	54	....	5‐64	

Figure	5‐72:	Proposed	PBRR	Corridor	Location	with	Field	Conditions	and	STPs,	Page	54	of	54	....	5‐65	

Figure	5‐73:	Location	of	Linear	Archaeological	Sites	on	USGS	7.5’	Quadrangle	Maps	.........................	5‐66	

Figure	5‐74:	Location	of	Linear	Archaeological	Sites	on	Aerial	Photograph	............................................	5‐67	

Figure	5‐75:	Location	of	Site	22Ha171	on	USGS	7.5	Quadrangle	Maps	......................................................	5‐69	

Figure	5‐76:	Location	of	Site	22Ha171	on	Aerial	Photograph	........................................................................	5‐70	

Figure	5‐77:	Site	22Ha171,	looking	South‐Southeast	........................................................................................	5‐71	

Figure	5‐78:	Location	of	Site	22Ha181	on	USGS	7.5	Quadrangle	Maps	......................................................	5‐73	

Figure	5‐79:	Location	of	Site	22Ha181	on	Aerial	Photograph	........................................................................	5‐74	

Figure	5‐80:	Site	22Ha181,	looking	East	.................................................................................................................	5‐75	

Figure	5‐81:	Location	of	Site	22Ha766	on	USGS	7.5	Quadrangle	Maps	......................................................	5‐77	

Figure	5‐82:	Location	of	Site	22Ha766	on	Aerial	Photograph	........................................................................	5‐78	

Figure	5‐83:	Site	22Ha766,	looking	East	.................................................................................................................	5‐79	

Figure	5‐84:	Location	of	Site	22Ha767	on	USGS	7.5	Quadrangle	Maps	......................................................	5‐81	

Figure	5‐85:	Location	of	Site	22Ha767	on	Aerial	Photograph	........................................................................	5‐82	

Figure	5‐86:	Site	22Ha767,	looking	South‐Southeast	........................................................................................	5‐83	

Figure	5‐87:	Location	of	Site	22Ha768	on	USGS	7.5	Quadrangle	Maps	......................................................	5‐85	

Figure	5‐88:	Location	of	Site	22Ha768	on	Aerial	Photograph	........................................................................	5‐86	

Figure	5‐89:	Site	22Ha768,	looking	East	.................................................................................................................	5‐87	

Figure	5‐90:	Location	of	Site	22Ha769	on	USGS	7.5	Quadrangle	Maps	......................................................	5‐89	

Figure	5‐91:	Location	of	Site	22Ha769	on	Aerial	Photograph	........................................................................	5‐90	

Figure	5‐92:	Site	22Ha769,	looking	East	.................................................................................................................	5‐91	

Figure	5‐93:	Location	of	Site	22Ha770	on	USGS	7.5	Quadrangle	Maps	......................................................	5‐93	

Figure	5‐94:	Location	of	Site	22Ha770	on	Aerial	Photograph	........................................................................	5‐94	

Figure	5‐95:	Site	22Ha770,	looking	East	.................................................................................................................	5‐95	

Figure	5‐96:	Location	of	Site	22Ha771	on	USGS	7.5	Quadrangle	Maps	......................................................	5‐97	

Figure	5‐97:	Location	of	Site	22Ha771	on	Aerial	Photograph	........................................................................	5‐98	

Figure	5‐98:	Location	of	Site	22Ha772	on	USGS	7.5	Quadrangle	Maps	...................................................	5‐100	

Figure	5‐99:	Location	of	Site	22Ha772	on	Aerial	Photograph	.....................................................................	5‐101	

Figure	5‐100:	Site	22Ha772,	looking	South‐southwest	..................................................................................	5‐102	

Figure	5‐101:	Location	of	Site	22Ha773	on	USGS	7.5	Quadrangle	Maps	................................................	5‐104	

Figure	5‐102:	Location	of	Site	22Ha773	on	Aerial	Photograph	..................................................................	5‐105	

Figure	5‐103:	Site	22Ha773,	looking	East	............................................................................................................	5‐106	

Figure	5‐104:	Location	of	Site	22Ha774	on	USGS	7.5	Quadrangle	Maps	................................................	5‐108	

Figure	5‐105:	Location	of	Site	22Ha774	on	Aerial	Photograph	..................................................................	5‐109	

Figure	5‐106:	Site	22Ha774,	looking	West	..........................................................................................................	5‐110	

Figure	5‐107:	Location	of	Site	22Ha775	on	USGS	7.5	Quadrangle	Maps	................................................	5‐112	

Figure	5‐108:	Location	of	Site	22Ha775	on	Aerial	Photograph	..................................................................	5‐113	

Figure	5‐109:	Location	of	Site	22Ha776	on	USGS	7.5	Quadrangle	Maps	................................................	5‐115	

Figure	5‐110:	Location	of	Site	22Ha776	on	Aerial	Photograph	..................................................................	5‐116	
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Table of Contents

	 ix	 Project	No.	FRA‐0023‐00(003)/105494	101000‐102000

Figure	5‐111:	Location	of	Site	22Ha777	on	USGS	7.5	Quadrangle	Maps	................................................	5‐118	

Figure	5‐112:	Location	of	Site	22Ha777	on	Aerial	Photograph	..................................................................	5‐119	

Figure	5‐113:	Location	of	Site	22Ha778	on	USGS	7.5	Quadrangle	Maps	................................................	5‐121	

Figure	5‐114:	Location	of	Site	22Ha778	on	Aerial	Photograph	..................................................................	5‐122	

Figure	5‐115:	Location	of	Site	22Ha779	on	USGS	7.5	Quadrangle	Maps	................................................	5‐124	

Figure	5‐116:	Location	of	Site	22Ha779	on	Aerial	Photograph	..................................................................	5‐125	

Figure	5‐117:	Site	22Ha779,	looking	West	..........................................................................................................	5‐126	

Figure	5‐118:	Location	of	Site	22Ha780	on	USGS	7.5	Quadrangle	Maps	................................................	5‐128	

Figure	5‐119:	Location	of	Site	22Ha780	on	Aerial	Photograph	..................................................................	5‐129	

Figure	5‐120:	Location	of	Site	22Ha781	on	USGS	7.5	Quadrangle	Maps	................................................	5‐131	

Figure	5‐121:	Location	of	Site	22Ha781	on	Aerial	Photograph	..................................................................	5‐132	

Figure	5‐122:	Site	22Ha781,	looking	South	.........................................................................................................	5‐133	

Figure	5‐123:	Location	of	Site	22Ha782	on	USGS	7.5	Quadrangle	Maps	................................................	5‐135	

Figure	5‐124:	Location	of	Site	22Ha782	on	Aerial	Photograph	..................................................................	5‐136	

Figure	5‐125:	Site	22Ha782,	looking	West	..........................................................................................................	5‐137	

Figure	5‐126:	Location	of	Site	22Ha783a	on	USGS	7.5	Quadrangle	Maps	..............................................	5‐139	

Figure	5‐127:	Location	of	Site	22Ha783a	on	Aerial	Photograph	................................................................	5‐140	

Figure	5‐128:	Site	22Ha783a,	Shown	over	LiDAR	Data	.................................................................................	5‐141	

Figure	5‐129:	Site	22Ha783a,	looking	West	........................................................................................................	5‐142	

Figure	5‐130:	Location	of	Site	22Ha783b	on	USGS	7.5	Quadrangle	Maps	..............................................	5‐143	

Figure	5‐131:	Location	of	Site	22Ha783b	on	Aerial	Photograph	...............................................................	5‐144	

Figure	5‐132:	Site	22Ha783b,	Shown	over	LiDAR	Data	.................................................................................	5‐145	

Figure	5‐133:	Site	22Ha783b,	looking	West	.......................................................................................................	5‐146	

Figure	5‐134:	Location	of	Site	22Ha783c	on	USGS	7.5	Quadrangle	Maps	..............................................	5‐147	

Figure	5‐135:	Location	of	Site	22Ha783c	on	Aerial	Photograph	................................................................	5‐148	

Figure	5‐136:	Site	22Ha783c,	Shown	over	LiDAR	Data	..................................................................................	5‐150	

Figure	5‐137:	Location	of	Site	22Ha783d	on	USGS	7.5	Quadrangle	Maps	..............................................	5‐151	

Figure	5‐138:	Location	of	Site	22Ha783d	on	Aerial	Photograph	...............................................................	5‐152	

Figure	5‐139:	Site	22Ha783d,	Shown	over	LiDAR	Data	.................................................................................	5‐153	

Figure	5‐140:	Location	of	Site	22Ha783e	on	USGS	7.5	Quadrangle	Maps	..............................................	5‐154	

Figure	5‐141:	Location	of	Site	22Ha783e	on	Aerial	Photograph	................................................................	5‐155	

Figure	5‐142:	Site	22Ha783e,	Shown	over	LiDAR	Data..................................................................................	5‐156	

Figure	5‐143:	Site	22Ha783e,	looking	South	......................................................................................................	5‐157	

Figure	5‐144:	Location	of	Site	22Ha783f	on	USGS	7.5	Quadrangle	Maps	...............................................	5‐158	

Figure	5‐145:	Location	of	Site	22Ha783f	on	Aerial	Photograph	.................................................................	5‐159	

Figure	5‐146:	Site	22Ha783f,	Shown	over	LiDAR	Data	..................................................................................	5‐161	

Figure	5‐147:	Location	of	Site	22Ha783g	on	USGS	7.5	Quadrangle	Maps	..............................................	5‐162	

Figure	5‐148:	Location	of	Site	22Ha783g	on	Aerial	Photograph	................................................................	5‐163	

Figure	5‐149:	Site	22Ha783g,	Shown	over	LiDAR	Data	.................................................................................	5‐164	

Figure	5‐150:	Location	of	Site	22Ha783h	on	USGS	7.5	Quadrangle	Maps	..............................................	5‐165	

Figure	5‐151:	Location	of	Site	22Ha783h	on	Aerial	Photograph	...............................................................	5‐166	

Figure	5‐152:	Site	22Ha783h,	Shown	over	LiDAR	Data	.................................................................................	5‐167	

Figure	5‐153:	Location	of	Site	22Pr158	on	USGS	7.5	Quadrangle	Maps	.................................................	5‐170	

Figure	5‐154:	Location	of	Site	22Pr158	on	Aerial	Photograph	...................................................................	5‐171	

Figure	5‐155:	Site	22Pr158,	looking	North	.........................................................................................................	5‐172	
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Table of Contents

	 x	 Project	No.	FRA‐0023‐00(003)/105494	101000‐102000

Figure	5‐156:	Location	of	Site	22Pr180	on	USGS	7.5	Quadrangle	Maps	.................................................	5‐174	

Figure	5‐157:	Location	of	Site	22Pr180	on	Aerial	Photograph	...................................................................	5‐175	

Figure	5‐158:	Site	22Pr180,	looking	North	.........................................................................................................	5‐176	

Figure	5‐159:	Location	of	Site	22Pr967	on	USGS	7.5	Quadrangle	Maps	.................................................	5‐178	

Figure	5‐160:	Location	of	Site	22Pr967	on	Aerial	Photograph	...................................................................	5‐179	

Figure	5‐161:	Site	22Pr967,	looking	West	...........................................................................................................	5‐180	

Figure	5‐162:	Location	of	Site	22Pr968	on	USGS	7.5	Quadrangle	Maps	.................................................	5‐182	

Figure	5‐163:	Location	of	Site	22Pr968	on	Aerial	Photograph	...................................................................	5‐183	

Figure	5‐164:	Site	22Pr968,	looking	West‐Southwest	....................................................................................	5‐184	

Figure	6‐1:	Architectural	APE	Location	on	USGS	7.5’	Quadrangle	Maps	......................................................	6‐2

Figure	6‐2:	Architectural	APE	Location	on	Aerial	Photograph.........................................................................	6‐3	

Figure	6‐3:	Location	of	Historic	Resources	on	USGS	7.5’	Quadrangle	Maps	...............................................	6‐4	

Figure	6‐4:	Location	of	Historic	Resources	on	Aerial	Photograph	..................................................................	6‐5	

Figure	6‐5:	Location	of	Resource	1	on	the	1998	Nicholson	USGS	7.5’	Quadrangle	Maps	.....................	6‐7	

Figure	6‐6:	Location	of	Resource	1	on	Aerial	Photograph	.................................................................................	6‐8	

Figure	6‐7:	Resource	1,	Looking	North.......................................................................................................................	6‐9	

Figure	6‐8:	Location	of	Resource	2	on	the	1998	Nicholson	USGS	7.5’	Quadrangle	Maps	...................	6‐11	

Figure	6‐9:	Location	of	Resource	2	on	Aerial	Photograph	...............................................................................	6‐12	

Figure	6‐10:	Resource	2,	Looking	North	..................................................................................................................	6‐13	

Figure	6‐11:	Location	of	Resource	3	on	the	1998	Nicholson	USGS	7.5’	Quadrangle	Maps	.................	6‐15	

Figure	6‐12:	Location	of	Resource	3	on	Aerial	Photograph	.............................................................................	6‐16	

Figure	6‐13:	Resource	3,	Looking	East	.....................................................................................................................	6‐17	
	 xi	 Project	No.	FRA‐0023‐00(003)/105494	101000‐102000

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

J.	Howard	Beverly	was	principal	investigator	for	the	archaeological	survey.	The	field	director	for	the	

archaeological	project	 for	CDM	Smith	was	 J.	Howard	Beverly	and	 for	HDR	it	was	Clayton	Tinsley.	

Ann	Wilkinson	of	CDM	Smith	contributed	to	the	report	along	with	Ann	Keen,	Megan	Koszarek,	and	

Clayton	 Tinsley	 of	 HDR.	 Howard	 Beverly	 produced	 the	 maps	 and	 formatted	 the	 report.		
	 xii	 Project	No.	FRA‐0023‐00(003)/105494	101000‐102000

ACRONYMS

Anno	Domini	 A.D.

Area	of	Potential	Effect	 APE

Before	Christ	 B.C.

Before	Present	 B.P.

Centimeters	 cm

Department	of	Transportation	 DOT

Fahrenheit	 F

Geographic	Information	System	 GIS

Geographic	Information	System	Professional GISP

Hancock	County	Port	and	Harbor	Commission	 HCPHC

Isolated	Find	 IF

Kilometer	 km

Mile	 mi

Millimeters	 mm

Mississippi	Department	of	Archives	and	History MDAH

Mississippi	Department	of	Transportation MDOT

Mississippi	State	Historic	Preservation	Office SHPO

National	Aeronautics	and	Space	Administration NASA

National	Environmental	Policy	Act	 NEPA

National	Historic	Preservation	Act	 NHPA

National	Register	of	Historical	Places	 NRHP

Norfolk	Southern		 NS

Port	Bienville	Railroad	 PBRR

Right‐of‐Way	 ROW

Register	of	Professional	Archaeologist	 RPA

John	C.	Stennis	Space	Center	 SSC

Shovel	Test	Probe	 STP

Transportation	Planning	Report	 TPR

United	States	Geological	Survey	 USGS
1-1 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report describes the field and laboratory methods for and the results of a Phase I cultural 

resource survey conducted for the Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT), the Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA), and the Hancock County Port and Harbor Commission (HCPHC) for 

a proposed new freight rail line that would provide a direct connection between the Port Bienville 

Railroad (PBRR) and the Norfolk Southern (NS) rail line near Interstate 59 (I-59), north of the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) John C. Stennis Space Center (SSC)

(Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000) (Figure 1-1). This connection would 

provide a second Class 1 rail connection to Port Bienville and the Industrial Park.

1.1 PROJECT PURPOSE

The purpose of the project is to construct a new railroad line to support the needs of the Port 

Bienville Industrial Park, and its tenants and other industries in the area. A new dual Class 1

railroad connection to serve the Port Bienville Industrial Park and surrounding area would:

• Improve rail transport time and reliability;

• Foster greater economic opportunities and attract new industries to Hancock and Pearl River 

Counties; 

• Create flexibility in rail transportation options during storms and other emergencies.

1.2 PROJECT LOCATION

The project is located in the southwestern portion of the state of Mississippi and encompasses a 

portion of Hancock and Pearl River Counties (Figure 1-1). Six segments comprise the centerline of 

the proposed PBRR corridor (Figure 1-2). Each of the segments is described below, from north to 

south.

1.2.1 Segment 11

Segment 11 is approximately 3.44 miles long and is located at the northern end of the proposed 

PBRR corridor near Nicholson, Mississippi. Dominant land uses include prior-converted pine 

plantations, roadways, railroad, utility infrastructure, and residential. Existing habitats consist of 

pine savannah/pine flatwoods, scrub/shrub wetlands, emergent wetland, and upland Pine 

Plantations. The segment also includes roadway, railroad, agricultural drainage features, and 

swales that convey storm water drainage from runoff during rain events.

1.2.2 Segment 10B

Segment 10B is approximately 5.17 miles long and is located near the northern end of the proposed 

PBRR corridor, between Segments 9 and 11. Dominant land uses within Segment 10B consist of 

roadway and utility infrastructure, and prior converted pine plantations. Existing habitats include 

pine savannah/pine flatwoods, scrub-shrub wetlands, bottomland hardwoods, emergent wetlands,

and upland pine plantations.
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Introduction

1-2 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Figure 1-1: Proposed PBRR Corridor Location within Pearl River and Hancock Counties
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Introduction

1-3 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Figure 1-2: Proposed PBRR Segments
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Introduction

1-4 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

1.2.3 Segment 9

Segment 9 is approximately 5.98 miles long and is located between Segments 8A and 10B. The 

segment begins approximately 0.4 mile west of the Texas Flat Road and Mainline Road intersection

and ends approximately 2.2 miles north of Interstate 10 (I-10). Dominant land uses within the 

limits of this corridor include prior-converted pine plantation of loblolly and slash pine, roadway, 

utility infrastructure, and farmlands. Open water and emergent wetland habitat exist along pipeline 

and utility right-of-way throughout this segment, likely resulting from disturbance during right-ofway construction and maintenance. Other existing habitats include scrub-shrub wetlands, pine 

savannahs, emergent wetlands, bottomland hardwoods, and pine plantation.

1.2.4 Segment 8A

Segment 8A is a relatively short segment approximately 0.87 mile and is located between Segments 

7 and 9. This segment consists of mostly pine savannahs and emergent wetlands north of I-10. Land 

uses in this area were consistent with other areas within the proposed PBRR corridor. These 

include hunt clubs and silvicultural practices. A large portion of the segment had been recently 

clear-cut.

1.2.5 Segment 7

Segment 7 is approximately 4.84 miles long and is located near the southern end of the proposed 

PBRR corridor, between Segments 8a and C. The segment begins approximately 1 mile south of US 

90 and ends 1.5 miles north of I-10. Dominant land uses consist of prior-converted pine plantations 

of loblolly and slash pine, roadway and utility infrastructure, residential, and cattle pasture. Existing 

habitats include pine plantation, bottomland hardwoods, pine savannah/pine flatwoods, scrub 

shrub wetlands, emergent wetlands, and early succession pine plantation uplands.

1.2.6 Segment C (Revised from Segments 1–6)

Segment C is approximately 3.39 miles in length beginning at the Port Bienville railroad and ending 

approximately 1 mile south of US-90. The corridor is bisected by several unnamed access roads 

used for both silviculture and pipeline maintenance. The abundance of deer stands would indicate 

this area is predominantly used for hunting purposes. Land uses for this area include roadway and 

utility infrastructure, residential, and hunt clubs in addition to silvicultural practices that dominate 

the landscape.

1.3 REGULATORY CONTEXT

The project is subject to compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as 

amended (16 USC 470 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 800). Specifically, Section 

106 of the NHPA requires that the responsible federal agency consider the effects of its actions on 

historic properties, which are properties listed in or determined eligible for listing in the National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and provide the Federal Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (ACHP) an opportunity to comment on the undertaking. The lead Federal Agency for 

this project is the Federal Railroad Administration because the project calls for the modification of 

an existing railroad.

Per Section 106 requirements, the lead federal agency, in consultation with the State Historic 

Preservation Officer (SHPO), develops the area of potential effects (APE), identifies historic 

properties (i.e., NRHP-listed and NRHP-eligible) in the APE, and makes determinations of the 
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Introduction

1-5 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

proposed project’s effect on historic properties in the APE. Section 106 regulations require that the 

lead federal agency consult with the SHPO and identified parties with an interest in historic 

properties during planning and development of the proposed project. The ACHP may participate in 

the consultation or may leave such involvement to the SHPO and other consulting parties. ACHP, if 

participating, and the SHPO are provided an opportunity to comment on the proposed project and 

its effects on historic properties. They participate in development of a Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA) or Programmatic Agreement (PA) to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects, as 

applicable. Stipulations in a MOA or a PA must be implemented. If a National Historic Landmark 

(NHL) is located within the APE and would be adversely affected by the project, the federal agency 

must also comply with Section 110(f) of the NHPA. Section 110(f) requires that the agency 

undertake, to the maximum extent possible, planning and actions to minimize harm to any 

adversely affected NHL and afford the ACHP an opportunity to comment. Per 36 CFR 800.10(c), the 

agency must notify the Secretary of the Interior of any consultation regarding an NHL and invite the 

Secretary and the ACHP to participate in consultation where an adverse effect to an NHL may occur. 

1.3.1 Area of Potential Effect Definition

The Area of Potential Effects (APE) is defined in 36 CFR Part 800.16(d) of the NHPA as “the 

geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations 

in the character or use of historic properties if any such properties exist. The APE is influenced by 

the scale and nature of an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by 

the undertaking.”

1.3.2 Identification of Historic Properties

Historic properties are listed in or determined eligible for listing in the NRHP by applying the NRHP 

Criteria for Evaluation to evaluate a property’s historic significance. The Criteria state that the 

quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is 

present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, 

setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and that:

A. Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns 

of our history; or 

B. Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or 

C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or 

represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values, or represent a significant 

and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or

D. Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Built resources are typically evaluated under Criteria A, B, and C; Criterion D applies primarily to 

archeological resources. 

If a property is determined to possess historic significance, its integrity is evaluated using the 

following seven Aspects of Integrity to determine if it conveys historic significance: location; design; 

setting; materials; workmanship; feeling; and association. If a property is determined to possess 

historic significance under one or more Criteria and retains integrity to convey its significance, the 

property is deemed eligible for the NRHP during Section 106 review.
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Introduction

1-6 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

1.3.3 Determination of Effect

Effects assessments are based on the criteria of adverse effect as defined in 36 CFR 800.5 

“Assessment of adverse effects.” According to this portion of the regulations, the criteria of adverse 

effects are defined as follows: 

An adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, 

any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for 

inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of 

the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or 

association. Consideration shall be given to all qualifying characteristics of a 

historic property, including those that may have been identified subsequent to the 

original evaluation of the property’s eligibility for the National Register. Adverse 

effects may include reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking that 

may occur later in time, be farther removed in distance, or be cumulative.

Examples of adverse effects are identified in 36 CFR 800.5 and include, but are not limited to, the 

following:

• Physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the property; 

• Alteration of a property, including restoration, rehabilitation, repair, maintenance, 

stabilization, hazardous material remediation, and provision of handicapped access, that is 

not consistent with the Secretary’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (36 

CFR 68) and applicable guidelines; 

• Removal of the property from its historic location; 

• Change of the character of the property’s use or of physical features within the property’s 

setting that contribute to its historic significance; 

• Introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the 

property’s significant historic features; 

• Neglect of a property that causes its deterioration, except where such neglect and 

deterioration are recognized qualities of a property of religious and cultural significance to 

an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization; and 

• Transfer, lease, or sale of property out of federal ownership or control without adequate 

and legally enforceable restrictions or conditions to ensure long-term preservation of the 

property’s historic significance. 

NRHP bulletins do not address assessments of effects, as effects evaluations are related to the 

Section 106 process and not the Section 110 process in which the National Register guidance is 

more commonly used. However, crucial information on integrity assessments (used for eligibility 

determinations) provides information regarding what each aspect of integrity entails and how each 

aspect relates to the select National Register criteria for eligibility. As described above, retention of 

relevant aspects of integrity is critical to a property’s significance under the NRHP Criteria for 

Evaluation. The National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Introduction

1-7 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

(National Park Service 1997) identifies the aspects of integrity and describes their relevance to the 

NRHP Criteria for Evaluation. The seven aspects of integrity are described in the bulletin as follows: 

• Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the 

historic event occurred;

• Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style 

of a property;

• Setting is the physical environment of a historic property;

• Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular 

period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property;

• Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during 

any given period in history or prehistory;

• Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of 

time; and

• Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic 

property.

According to guidance found in How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, different 

aspects of integrity may be more or less relevant depending on why a specific historic property was 

listed in or determined eligible for listing in the NRHP. For example, a property that is significant 

for its historic association (Criteria A or B) is eligible if it retains the essential physical features that 

made up its character or appearance during the period of its association with the important event, 

historical pattern, or person(s). A property determined eligible under Criteria A or B ideally might 

retain some features of all aspects of integrity, although aspects such as design and workmanship 

might not be as important.

A property important for illustrating a particular architectural style or construction technique 

(Criterion C) must retain most of the physical features that constitute that style or technique. A 

property that has lost some historic materials or details can be eligible if it retains the majority of 

features that illustrate its type and/or style in terms of the massing, spatial relationships, 

proportion, pattern of windows and doors, texture of materials, and ornamentation. The property is 

not eligible, however, if it retains some basic features conveying massing but has lost the majority 

of the features that once characterized its type or style. A property significant under Criterion C 

must retain those physical features that characterize the type, period, or method of construction 

that the property represents. Retention of design, workmanship, and materials will usually be more 

important than location, setting, feeling, and association. Location and setting will be important for 

those properties whose design is a reflection of their immediate environment (such as designed 

landscapes). 

For a historic district to retain integrity, the majority of the components that make up the district’s 

historic character must possess integrity even if they are individually undistinguished. In addition, 
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Introduction

1-8 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

the relationships among the district’s components must be substantially unchanged since the 

period of significance.

To determine project effects, each historic property in the APE was visited, and project plans and 

additional documentation were reviewed. Following guidelines set forth in 36 CFR 800 and 

supported by information on integrity set forth in the National Register Bulletin How to Apply the 

National Register Criteria for Evaluation, the following findings were used to assess project effects 

to historic properties: 

• No Effect: Per 36 CFR 800.4(d)(1), an undertaking may have no effect to historic properties 

present in the APE, and a finding of “No Effect” may be determined for an undertaking. This 

finding indicates that an undertaking would not alter any aspects of integrity for any 

historic properties. 

• No Adverse Effect: Per 36 CFR 800.5(b), an undertaking may be determined to have “No 

Adverse Effect” to historic properties if the undertaking’s effects do not meet the criteria of 

adverse effect as described above. If project implementation would alter a specific aspect of 

integrity for a historic property but the effect would not alter a characteristic that qualifies 

that resource for inclusion in the NRHP in a manner that diminishes the significant aspect of 

integrity, then the finding for that aspect of integrity is “No Adverse Effect.” 

• Adverse Effect: An adverse effect is determined if the undertaking would alter a 

characteristic that qualifies that contributing resource for inclusion in the NRHP in a 

manner that diminishes the significant aspect(s) of integrity.

1.3.4 Avoidance Alternatives, Planning to Minimize Effects, and Mitigation 

Per 36 CFR 800.6, a finding of adverse effect to historic properties requires that efforts to resolve 

such effects by developing and evaluating alternatives or modifications to the undertaking that 

could avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects must be undertaken.

To determine if any historic properties within the project’s APE would be affected by the project, 

documentation was reviewed for all NRHP listed and eligible properties within the APE, project 

plans were reviewed, and additional field visits were conducted to each historic property. Using the 

criteria of adverse effect established in 36 CFR 800.5(a)(1) and guidance found in How to Apply the 

National Register Criteria for Evaluation, each historic property was evaluated to determine if 

implementation of the project would alter any historically significant characteristics or features of 

each historic property by diminishing relevant aspects of that property’s historic integrity.

1.4 IDENTIFIED AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS DEFINITION

For the purpose of the Archaeological and Architectural investigations detailed in this report, two 

defined APE are used. One is for delineating the archaeological limits of investigation

(Archaeological APE), and the other defines the architectural research limits (Architectural APE).

1.4.1 Archaeological APE

The final constructed footprint of the rail bed is expected to be typically less than 100 feet in width. 

As such, the Archaeological APE consists of a 100 foot (30.48 m) buffer applied along the centerline 

of the proposed Port Bienville Railroad (PBRR), resulting in a total survey corridor measuring 200 
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Introduction

1-9 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

feet (60.96 meters) in width. The proposed PBRR corridor is 38.1 kilometers (23.7 miles) in length,

and the Archaeological APE encompasses 575 acres (232.7 hectares). The northern terminus of the 

proposed PBRR corridor is easting 241467.764244, northing 3374759.986355 (UTM 16 NAD 27) 

and the NW 1⁄4 SW 1⁄4 NW 1⁄4 SE 1⁄4 of Section 39 Township 6S Range 17W. The southern terminus of 

the proposed PBRR corridor is easting 257112.267091, northing 3348105.949963 (UTM 16 NAD 

27) and the NW 1⁄4 NW 1⁄4 SE 1⁄4 SW 1⁄4 of Section 20 Township 9S Range 15W. Figure 1-3 outlines 

the Archaeological APE on USGS quadrangle maps, and Figure 1-4 outlines the Archaeological APE 

on an aerial photograph.

1.4.2 Architectural APE

The Architectural APE is defined as being a 75 meter (246.06 feet) MDOT and MDAH approved 

buffer size around the Archaeological APE. Figure 1-3 outlines the Architectural APE on USGS 

quadrangle maps, and Figure 1-4 outlines the Architectural APE on an aerial photograph.

1.5 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL INVESTIGATIONS SPONSOR

The sponsor for this project is MDOT and HCPHC.

1.6 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL INVESTIGATIONS GOALS

The archaeological and architectural investigations reported in this document were undertaken to 

identify any archaeological or architectural resources within the proposed PBRR corridor that are 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. This was accomplished by conducting a Phase I archaeological 

survey of the APE to generate a preliminary description of any archaeological sites that were 

present in the proposed PBRR corridor as well as an architectural study of the Architectural APE to 

identify historic resources.

The archaeological and architectural research was conducted in compliance with provisions of the 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-665; 80 Stat.915, 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq), the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 910190; 83 Stat. 852, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq), 

Procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36 CFR 800), Executive Order 11593, 

Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment (16 U.S.C. 470; Supp. 1, 1971), and 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.).

This report conforms to the Mississippi Department of Transportation Guidelines for Contractors 

on Archaeological Investigations and Reports (2007) and the MDAH’s Guidelines for Archaeological 

Investigations and Reports in Mississippi (Sims 2001).

1.7 PERSONNEL

The personnel for this project were comprised of archaeologist(s) and architectural historians from 

the Lexington, Kentucky, office of CDM Smith Inc, and the Dallas, Texas, office of HDR Inc.
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Introduction

1-10 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Figure 1-3: Proposed PBRR Corridor Location on USGS Topographical Maps
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Introduction

1-11 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Figure 1-4: Proposed PBRR Corridor Location on Aerial Photograph
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Introduction

1-12 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

1.7.1 Principal Investigator

The principal investigator for this study was Mr. J. Howard Beverly, Jr., RPA. Mr. Beverly planned 

and supervised field and laboratory activities and, as needed, directed additional effort to 

determine eligibility status. 

1.7.2 Field and Laboratory Crew

The field director for CDM Smith was J. Howard Beverly, Jr. The field director for HDR was Clayton 

Tinsley.

1.8 BACKGROUND RESEARCH DATES

The Mississippi Department of Archives and History (MDAH) files were consulted on April 26, 

2016.

1.9 FIELD SURVEY DATES

The phase I Archaeological and Architectural survey was conducted between April 12 and 19, 2016,

and between June 14 and 16, 2016.

1.10 FIELD SURVEY CONDITIONS

The weather during the April field visit was a mix of rain and sun with warm temperatures, while 

June was sunny and hot (Table 1-1). In the days leading up to the April field visit, the area had 

received substantial rainfall, causing water level to rise above flood stages (Figure 1-5), inundating 

low lying areas and ponding on poorly drained soils.

Table 1-1: Weather Information

Date

Temp. (°F) Precip. (in)

Events

high avg low sum

April 12, 2016 72.0 67.4 62.2 1.83 Rain, Thunderstorm

April 13, 2016 74.3 66.1 61.2 1.43 Rain, Thunderstorm

April 14, 2016 85.3 70.8 64.9 0.29 Rain

April 15, 2016 71.2 66.7 64.2 0.00

April 16, 2016 73.0 66.9 64.0 0.00

April 17, 2016 76.6 68.4 61.5 0.00

April 18, 2016 85.8 69.5 59.4 0.00

April 19, 2016 86.2 70.5 61.0 0.00

June 14, 2016 91.8 79.9 75.1 0.00

June 15, 2016 91.9 84.5 78.6 0.00

June 16, 2016 96.1 85.8 78.5 0.00
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Introduction

1-13 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Figure 1-5: Pearl River Gage Height and Flood Stage from April 12 to June 16, 2016

1.11 EXHIBIT PREPARATIONS AND MAPS

Maps and figures for this report were prepared using a combination of Microstation design files, GIS 

data overlays, and databases gathered from a number of different resources. All GIS work was 

conducted by Mr. J. Howard Beverly, RPA.

1.12 CURATION INFORMATION

All field notes, maps, and forms will be curated by MDOT.

1.13 OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS

1.13.1 Archaeological Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations

No previously recorded archaeological sites were identified within the Archaeological APE. A total 

of 24 newly recorded linear archaeological sites were identified as a result of this investigation

(Table 1-2). Of these sites, 13 are not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, and 11 have undetermined 

eligibility statuses. The current project will not have an adverse impact to any archaeological sites 

recorded within the APE.

1.13.2 Architectural Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations

No previously recorded architectural resources were within the Architectural APE. Three newly 

documented architectural resources, Resource 1, Resource 2, and Resource 3, were identified (
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Introduction

1-14 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Table 1-3). All three were built by Southern Railway for transporting construction materials and 

other material to the Mississippi Test Operations site, now known as the John C. Stennis Space 

Center. Although the resources were built to enable construction of the NRHP-listed Rocket 

Propulsion Test Complex, they are not associated with the mission of the complex. They provided 

necessary infrastructure and support for the complex but were not specifically associated with the 

complex’s mission or any historic themes or events. The structures are not historically or 

architecturally significant, as defined by the National Park Service. Therefore, the Resources are

recommended not eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A-D.

Table 1-2: Archaeological Sites

Site Number Context Period of Occupation NRHP

Recommendation

22Ha171 Historic Undetermined

22Ha181 Historic Undetermined

22Ha766 Historic Not Eligible

22Ha767 Historic Undetermined

22Ha768 Historic Not Eligible

22Ha769 Historic Not Eligible

22Ha770 Historic Undetermined

22Ha771 Historic Not Eligible

22Ha772 Historic Undetermined

22Ha773 Historic Not Eligible

22Ha774 Historic Not Eligible

22Ha775 Historic Not Eligible

22Ha776 Historic Not Eligible

22Ha777 Historic Not Eligible

22Ha778 Historic Not Eligible

22Ha789 Historic Not Eligible

22Ha780 Historic Not Eligible

22Ha781 Historic Not Eligible

22Ha782 Historic Undetermined

22Ha783 (a–g) Historic Undetermined

22Pr158 Historic Undetermined

22Pr180 Historic Undetermined

22Pr967 Historic Undetermined

22Pr968 Historic Undetermined
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Introduction

1-15 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Table 1-3: Newly Documented Historic Properties

Site Number Type Location NRHP

Recommendation

Resource 1 Southern Railroad Bridge

over Second Alligator Branch

89° 40' 27.07" W

30° 28' 6.89" N Not Eligible

Resource 2 Southern Railroad Bridge

over I-59 and Alligator Branch

89° 41' 3.09" W

30° 28' 24.59" N Not Eligible

Resource 3 Southern Railroad Culvert over

Indian Camp Branch

89° 39' 56.05" W

30° 27' 34.00" N Not Eligible
2-1 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

2.0 ENVIRONMENT

This section describes the present environment and setting of the proposed PRBB corridor and how 

the prehistoric and historic environment may have differed from the contemporary environment.

2.1 GEOLOGY

The state of Mississippi lies almost entirely within what is known as the Gulf Coastal Plain which is 

continuous to the east with the Atlantic Coastal Plain. The Gulf Coastal Plain is subdivided along the 

Mississippi River into the East Gulf Coastal Plain and the West Gulf Coastal Plain. The Mississippi 

River Alluvial Plain is to the northwest. It consists of level and nearly level floodplains that extend 

to the foothills of the loess bluffs which form a crescent at the region's eastern edge.

The bedrock underlying Pearl River and Hancock counties include Graham Ferry and Pascagoula 

Formations, Citronelle Formation, High Terrace deposits, Pamiloco Sand, alluvium, coastal deposits, 

and eolian sand. The geology underlying the proposed PRBB corridor consists of coastal deposits 

(Figure 2-1). Coastal deposits include fine to medium quartz sand with shell fragments and 

accessory heavy minerals found along Gulf coastal beaches. In the Mississippi Sound, Little Lagoon, 

bays, lakes, streams are fine to medium quartz sand, silt, clay, peat, mud and ooze (Nicholas et al. 

1983:2; Smith et al. 1981:2; USGS 2016). 

2.2 PHYSIOGRAPHY

The proposed PBRR corridor is within the Gulf Coastal Plain physiographic province, mainly on the 

eastern flank of the Mississippi embayment. The area is characterized by low hills, low steep-sided 

ridges, and gently rolling lowlands (Shimer 1972). 

Mississippi can be divided further into nine distinct physiographical zones. These are the Black 

Prairie, Costal Zone, Delta, Jackson Prairie, Loess Hills, North Central Hills, Pine Belt, South Central 

Hills, and the Tombigbee Hills. The proposed PRBB corridor is entirely within the Coastal 

physiographic zone (Figure 2-2).

The Coastal Zone is a flat area rising gently inland from the shore in a belt about 10 to 15 miles wide 

and parallel to the Gulf Coast. The soils, consisting mostly of ultisols, inceptisols, a few histosols and 

entisols, and rare spodosols, are acid and include areas of boggy soils with high organic content. 

They originate from Pleistocene and recent deposits of clay, silt, sand and gravel. The vegetation 

found in this area is similar to those found in the southern part of the Pine Hills such as live oaks, 

southern magnolia, and saw-palmetto. Along the shore are the saline and brackish marshes with 

black needlerush and cordgrasses. Also present are fire-dependent savannas with slash pine 

include numerous grasses, sedges, and carnivorous plants (Stewart 2003).
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Environment

2-2 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Figure 2-1: Geology of the Proposed PBRR Corridor
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Environment

2-3 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Figure 2-2: Physiography of the Proposed PBRR Corridor
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Environment

2-4 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

2.3 ECOLOGY

Pearl River and Hancock county is located within the South Coastal Plains Level III ecoregion for 

Mississippi (Figure 2-3). The Southern Coastal Plain extends from South Carolina and Georgia 

through much of central Florida, and along the Gulf coast lowlands of the Florida Panhandle, 

Alabama, and Mississippi. Although appearing heterogeneous flat throughout the region, it contains 

barrier islands, coastal lagoons, marshes, and swampy lowlands. Once covered by a variety of forest 

communities that included trees of longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), slash pine (P. elliottii), pond pine 

(P. serotina), beech (Fagus grandifolia), sweetgum (Liquidamber styraciflua), southern magnolia 

(Magnolia grandiflora), white oak (Quercus alba), and laurel oak (Q. laurifolia), the area is now 

mostly made up of slash and loblolly pine with oak-gum-cypress forest in some low-lying areas, 

pasture for beef cattle, and urban development (Chapman et al. 2004).

Within Pearl River and Hancock County, the proposed PRBB corridor is located within the Gulf 

Coast Flatwoods (Figure 2-4). This area is a narrow region of nearly level terraces and delta 

deposits composed of Quaternary-age sands and clays. Wet, sandy flats and broad depressions that 

are locally swampy are now usually forested or in pine plantations, while some of the betterdrained land has been cleared for pasture or crops. Dominant land uses include woodland, wildlife 

habitat, and urban development. Historically, pine savannas with slash and longleaf pine (Pinus 

elliottii, P. palustris) and a variety of grasses, sedges, rushes, pitcher plants and orchids were 

common. A high natural fire frequency was typical, often sparked by lightning and fueled by 

wiregrass (Aristida spp.) that maintained the more open savannas (Chapman et al. 2004).

2.4 SOILS

There are 26 different soil series within the proposed PBRR corridor. These are Atmore silt loam 

(At), Beauregard silt loam (Be), Bibb sandy loam (Bd), Escambia fine sandy loam, zero to two

percent slopes (EaA), Escambia loam, zero to two percent slopes (EsA), Escambia loam, two to five

percent slopes (EsB), Eustis loamy fine sand, two to five percent slopes (EuB), Guyton silt loam 

(Gu), Harleston fine sandy loam, zero to two percent slopes (HlA), Harleston fine sandy loam, two to 

five percent slopes (HlB), Malbis fine sandy loam, two to five percent slopes (MaB), McLaurin fine 

sandy loam, two to five percent slopes (McB), Pits (Pa), Poarch fine sandy loam, zero to two percent 

slopes (PoA), Poarch fine sandy loam, two to five percent slopes (PoB), Poarch fine sandy loam, five 

to eight percent slopes (PoC), Poarch loam, zero to two percent slopes (PoA), Saucier fine sandy 

loam, zero to two percent slopes (SaA), Saucier fine sandy loam, two to five percent slopes (SaB), 

Saucier loam, zero to two percent slopes (SaA), Saucier-Susquehanna complex, two to five percent 

slopes (ScB), Smithton association, frequently flooded (SW), Smithton fine sandy loam (St), 

Smithton fine sandy loam, frequently flooded (Su), Trebloc association, frequently flooded (TR), and 

Water (W). A map of the soil types is presented in Figure 2-5.

The Atmore silt loam (At) soils are made up of one major component (Atmore) and three minor 

components (Harleston, Poarch, and Escambia). Slopes are zero to two percent. This component is 

on terraces on coastal plains. The parent material consists of silty alluvium over fine-loamy 

alluvium derived from sedimentary rock. Depth to a root restrictive layer, plinthite, is 24 to 50 

inches. The natural drainage class is poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer 

is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is moderate. 
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Environment

2-5 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Figure 2-3: Level III Ecoregions of the Proposed PBRR Corridor
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Environment

2-6 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Figure 2-4: Level IV Ecoregions of the Proposed PBRR Corridor
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Environment

2-7 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Figure 2-5: Soils Inside the Proposed PBRR Corridor
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Environment

2-8 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water 

saturation is at four inches during March, April, October. Organic matter content in the surface 

horizon is about two percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 4w. This soil hydric 

criteria. There are no saline horizons within 30 inches of the soil surface (USDA 2016).

The Beauregard silt loam (Be) soils are made up of one major component (Beauegard), and four

minor components (Atmore, Smithton, Escambia, and Harleston). Slopes are zero to one percent. 

This component is on coastal plains. The parent material consists of loamy alluvium. Depth to a root 

restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is moderately well drained. 

Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 

inches (or restricted depth) is very high. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is 

not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 27 inches during January, February, March, 

December. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about three percent. Nonirrigated land 

capability classification is 2w. This soil does not meet hydric criteria (USDA 2016).

Bibb sandy loam (Bd) soils are made up of one major component (Bibb) and one minor component 

(Dovoran). This component is on flood plains. The parent material consists of sandy and loamy 

alluvium deposits. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage 

class is poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available 

water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is low. This 

soil is frequently flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at nine inches 

during January, February, March, April, December. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is 

about two percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 5w. This soil meets hydric criteria 

(USDA 2016).

The Escambia fine sandy loam, zero to two percent slopes (EaA) soils is made up of one major 

component (Escambia) and three minor components (Atmore, Malbis, and Poarch). Slopes are zero 

to two percent. This component is on coastal plains, interfluves. The parent material consists of 

loamy fluviomarine deposits derived from sedimentary rock. Depth to a root restrictive layer is 

greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is somewhat poorly drained. Water movement in 

the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted 

depth) is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. A 

seasonal zone of water saturation is at 15 inches during January, February, March, December. 

Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about two percent. Nonirrigated land capability 

classification is 2w. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. There are no saline horizons within 30 

inches of the soil surface (USDA 2016).

Escambia loam, zero to two percent slopes (EsA) soils are made up of one major component 

(Escambia) and five minor components (Guyton, Harleston, Saucier, Atmore, and Poarch). This 

component is on coastal plains. The parent material consists of sandy and loamy marine deposits. 

Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is somewhat 

poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to 

a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not 

flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 24 inches during January, 

February, March, December. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about one percent. 
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Environment

2-9 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Nonirrigated land capability classification is 2w. This soil does not meet hydric criteria (USDS 

2016).

Escambia loam, two to five percent slopes (EsB) soils consist of one major component (Escambia) 

and five minor components (Atmore, Harleston, Guyton, Poarch, and Saucier). Slopes are two to five 

percent. This component is on hillslopes. The parent material consists of Sandy Marine Deposits. 

Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is somewhat 

excessively drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a 

depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is low. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. 

It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter 

content in the surface horizon is about one percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 3s. 

This soil does not meet hydric criteria (USDS 2016).

Eustis loamy fine sand, two to five percent slopes (EuB) soils consist of one major component 

(Eustis) and three minor components (Escambia, Harleston, and Poarch). Slopes are two to five 

percent. This component is on hillslopes. The parent material consists of Sandy Marine Deposits. 

Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is somewhat 

excessively drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a 

depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is low. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. 

It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter 

content in the surface horizon is about 1 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 3s. 

This soil does not meet hydric criteria (USDS 2016).

The Guyton silt loam (Gu) soils are made up of one major component (Guyton) and three minor 

components (Myatt, Abita, and Stough). The Guyton component makes up 90 percent of the map 

unit. Slopes are zero to one percent. This component is on fluviomarine terraces, flood-plain steps. 

The parent material consists of late Plisetocene age terraces with loamy alluvium derived from 

sedimentary rock. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage 

class is poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available 

water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is very high. Shrink-swell potential is low. This 

soil is rarely flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at nine inches during 

January, February, March, April, May, December. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is 

about two percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 3w. This soil meets hydric criteria.

There are no saline horizons within 30 inches of the soil surface (USDA 2016).

Harleston fine sandy loam, zero to two percent slopes (HlA) soils consist of one major component 

(Harleston) and three minor components (Bibb, Smithton, and Stough). Slopes are zero to two

percent. This component is on stream terraces on coastal plains. The parent material consists of 

loamy alluvium derived from sedimentary rock. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 

inches. The natural drainage class is moderately well drained. Water movement in the most 

restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is 

low. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water 

saturation is at 22 inches during January, February, March, April, May, December. Organic matter 

content in the surface horizon is about two percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 

2w. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. There are no saline horizons within 30 inches of the soil 

surface (USDA 2016).
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Environment

2-10 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Harleston fine sandy loam, two to five percent slopes (HlB) soils consist of one major component 

(Harleston) and three minor components (Bibb, Smithton, and Stough). Slopes are two to five 

percent. This component is on marine terraces on coastal plains. The parent material consists of 

loamy alluvium derived from sedimentary rock. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 

inches. The natural drainage class is moderately well drained. Water movement in the most 

restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is 

moderate. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of 

water saturation is at 22 inches during January, February, March, April, May, December. Organic 

matter content in the surface horizon is about two percent. Nonirrigated land capability 

classification is 2w. Irrigated land capability classification is 2w. This soil does not meet hydric 

criteria. There are no saline horizons within 30 inches of the soil surface (USDA 2016).

Malbis fine sandy loam, two to five percent slopes (MaB) soils consist of one major component 

(Malbis) and four minor components (Saucier, Poarch, Benndale, and Escambia). Slopes are two to 

five percent. This component is on fluviomarine terraces on coastal plains. The parent material 

consists of fine-loamy marine deposits derived from sedimentary rock. Depth to a root restrictive 

layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well drained. Water movement in the 

most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted 

depth) is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. A 

seasonal zone of water saturation is at 39 inches during January, February, March, December. 

Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about two percent. Nonirrigated land capability 

classification is 2e. Irrigated land capability classification is 2e. This soil does not meet hydric 

criteria. There are no saline horizons within 30 inches of the soil surface (USDA 2016).

The McLaurin fine sandy loam, two to five percent slopes (McB) is made up of one major 

component (McLaurin) and two minor components (Smithdale, and Benndale). Slopes are two to 

five percent. This component is on dissected fluviomarine terraces on coastal plains. The parent 

material consists of loamy fluviomarine deposits derived from sedimentary rock. Depth to a root 

restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well drained. Water 

movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches 

(or restricted depth) is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not 

ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in 

the surface horizon is about two percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 2e. This soil 

does not meet hydric criteria. There are no saline horizons within 30 inches of the soil surface 

(USDA 2016).

Pits (Pa) are open excavations from which soil and commonly underlying material have been 

removed, exposing either rock or other material (USDA 2016).

Poarch fine sandy loam, zero to two percent slopes (PoA) soils are made up of one major 

component (Poarch) and one minor component (Smithton). Slopes are zero to two percent. This 

component is on ridges. The parent material consists of sandy and loamy marine deposits. Depth to 

a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well drained. Water 

movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches 

(or restricted depth) is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not 
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Environment

2-11 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 45 inches during January, February, March, 

December. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about one percent. Nonirrigated land 

capability classification is 1. This soil does not meet hydric criteria (USDA 2016).

Poarch fine sandy loam, two to five percent slopes (PoB) soils consist of one major component 

(Poarch) and three minor components (Escambia, Malbis, and Harleston). Slopes are two to five 

percent. This component is on broad ridges on dissected uplands coastal plains. The parent 

material consists of loamy fluviomarine deposits derived from sedimentary rock. Depth to a root 

restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well drained. Water 

movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches 

(or restricted depth) is high. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. 

A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 45 inches during January, February, March, December. 

Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about two percent. Nonirrigated land capability 

classification is 2e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. There are no saline horizons within 30 

inches of the soil surface (USDA 2016).

Poarch fine sandy loam, five to eight percent slopes (PoC) soils consist of one major component 

(Poarch) and three minor components (Harleston, Smithton, and Escambia). Slopes are five to eight 

percent. This component is on hillslopes. The parent material consists of sandy and loamy marine 

deposits. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is 

well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a 

depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not 

flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 45 inches during January, 

February, March, December. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about one percent. 

Nonirrigated land capability classification is 3e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria (USDA 

2016).

Poarch loam, zero to two percent slopes (PoA) soils consist of one major component (Poarch) and 

one minor component (Smithton). Slopes are zero to two percent. This component is on ridges. The 

parent material consists of sandy and loamy marine deposits. Depth to a root restrictive layer is 

greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well drained. Water movement in the most 

restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is 

moderate. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of 

water saturation is at 45 inches during January, February, March, December. Organic matter 

content in the surface horizon is about one percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 1. 

This soil does not meet hydric criteria (USDA 2016).

Saucier fine sandy loam, zero to two percent slopes (SaA) soils consist of one major component 

(Saucier) and four minor components (Malbis, Poarch, Escambia, and Atmore). Slopes are zero to 

two percent. This component is on fluviomarine terraces, coastal plains. The parent material 

consists of loamy over clayey fluviomarine deposits derived from sedimentary rock. Depth to a root 

restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is moderately well drained. 

Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 

inches (or restricted depth) is high. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not 

ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 24 inches during January, February, March. 

Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about three percent. Nonirrigated land capability 
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Environment

2-12 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

classification is 2w. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. There are no saline horizons within 30 

inches of the soil surface (USDA 2016).

The Saucier fine sandy loam, two to five percent slopes (SaB) are made up of one major component 

(Saucier) and four minor components (Malbis, Poarch, Escambia, and Atmore). Slopes are two to 

five percent. This component is on fluviomarine terraces, coastal plains. The parent material 

consists of loamy over clayey fluviomarine deposits derived from sedimentary rock. Depth to a root 

restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is moderately well drained. 

Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 

inches (or restricted depth) is high. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not 

ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 24 inches during January, February, March. 

Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about three percent. Nonirrigated land capability 

classification is 2e. This soil does not meet hydric There are no saline horizons within 30 inches of 

the soil surface (USDA 2016).

Saucier loam, zero to two percent slopes (SaA) is made up of one major component (Saucier) and 

one minor component (Smithton). Slopes are zero to two percent. This component is on coastal 

plains. The parent material consists of loamy over clayey marine deposits. Depth to a root 

restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is moderately well drained. 

Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 

inches (or restricted depth) is high. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not 

ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 39 inches during January, February, March. 

Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about two percent. Nonirrigated land capability 

classification is 2w. This soil does not meet hydric criteria (USDA 2016).

Saucier-Susquehanna complex, two to five percent slopes (ScB) soils consist of two major 

components (Saucier and Susquehanna). Saucier soils have a slope of two to five percent. This 

component is on fluviomarine terraces, coastal plains. The parent material consists of loamy over 

clayey fluviomarine deposits derived from sedimentary rock. Depth to a root restrictive layer is 

greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is moderately well drained. Water movement in 

the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted 

depth) is high. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal 

zone of water saturation is at 24 inches during January, February, March. Organic matter content in 

the surface horizon is about three percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 2e. This soil 

does not meet hydric criteria. There are no saline horizons within 30 inches of the soil surface. 

Susquehanna soils have a slope of two to five percent. This component is on erosional uplands 

fluviomarine terraces on coastal plains. The parent material consists of silty clay fluviomarine 

deposits over clayey fluviomarine deposits derived from sedimentary rock. Depth to a root 

restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is somewhat poorly drained. 

Water movement in the most restrictive layer is low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or

restricted depth) is high. Shrink-swell potential is very high. This soil is not flooded. It is not 

ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in 

the surface horizon is about two percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 4e. This soil 

does not meet hydric criteria. There are no saline horizons within 30 inches of the soil surface 

(USDA 2016).
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Environment

2-13 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Smithton association, frequently flooded (SW) soils consist of one major component (Smithton) and 

three minor components (Trebloc, Harleston, and Bibb). Slopes are zero to two percent. This 

component is on terraces. The parent material consists of loamy alluvium. Depth to a root 

restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is poorly drained. Water 

movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches 

(or restricted depth) is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is frequently flooded. It is 

not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at six inches during January, February, March, 

April, May, December. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about two percent. 

Nonirrigated land capability classification is 5w. This soil meets hydric criteria (USDA 2016).

Smithton fine sandy loam (St) soils consist of one major component (Smithton) and four minor 

components (Atmore, Harleston, Guyton, and Plummer). Slopes are zero to two percent. This 

component is on terraces. The parent material consists of loamy alluvium. Depth to a root 

restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is poorly drained. Water 

movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches 

(or restricted depth) is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is occasionally flooded. It 

is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at six inches during January, February, March, 

April, May, December. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about two percent. 

Nonirrigated land capability classification is 4w. This soil meets hydric criteria (USDA 2016).

Smithton fine sandy loam, frequently flooded (Su) soils consist of one major component (Smithton) 

and four minor components (Guyton, Harleston, Plummer, and Atmore). Slopes are zero to two 

percent. This component is on terraces. The parent material consists of loamy alluvium. Depth to a 

root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is poorly drained. Water 

movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches 

(or restricted depth) is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is frequently flooded. It is 

not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at six inches during January, February, March, 

April, May, December. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about two percent. 

Nonirrigated land capability classification is 5w. This soil meets hydric criteria (USDA 2016).

Trebloc association, frequently flooded (TR) soils consist of one major component (Trebloc) and 

four minor components (Smithton, Harleston, Atmore, and Guyton). Slopes are zero to two percent. 

This component is on terraces. The parent material consists of silty alluvium deposits. Depth to a 

root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is poorly drained. Water 

movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches 

(or restricted depth) is high. Shrink-swell potential is moderate. This soil is frequently flooded. It is 

not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at nine inches during January, February, March, 

April. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about two percent. Nonirrigated land 

capability classification is 5w. This soil meets hydric criteria (USDA 2016).

Water (W) are areas where there is water present at the soil surface (USDA 2016).

2.5 DRAINAGE

The northern, central and eastern parts of Hancock county are drained by the Jordan and Wolf 

Rivers and their numerous tributaries which all empty into the St. Louis Bay. The western part of 

Hancock County is drained by the Pearl River. The western part of Perl River County is drained by 
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Environment

2-14 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

the Pearl River (Smith et al. 1981:2). The north-central and south-central parts of the county are 

drained by East Creek and West Hobolochito Creek. The eastern part of the county is trained by the 

Wolf River and its tributaries which all empty into the St. Louis Bay (Nichols et al. 1983:3).

The proposed PBRR corridor is situated within the Pearl River Basin and covers over 8,700 square 

miles. The basin drains all or parts of 24 counties in Mississippi and three parishes in Louisiana. 

Over 16,000 miles of streams and rivers flow through the basin. Subwatersheds of the Pearl River 

Basin include Fannegusha Creek, Mill Creek, the Strong River, Magees Creek, West Boley Creek, and 

Mike’s River (Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality 2016). The proposed PBRR 

corridor falls within the Lower Pearl River watershed (MDEQ 2016b). The natural hydrology has 

been heavily altered in the area due to silvicultural activities including ditching, rowing, and logging 

within the numerous pine plantations that account for most of the proposed PRBB corridor. The 

hydrology of the proposed PRBB corridor is shown in Figure 2-6.

2.6 PREHISTORIC CLIMATE

During the Wisconsin glacial period, northern Mississippi was covered by a boreal forest of jack 

(Pinus banksiana) and red pine (Pinus resinosa) and some spruce (Picea). As the climate warmed 

from 12,050 to 9,050 B.C., the boreal forest changed to a mesic and more modern forest type 

dominated by broadleaf deciduous trees. By 9,050 to 8,050 B.C. the climate became drier and the 

modern hardwood forest covering Mississippi came into existence around 7,050 to 3,050 B.C. 

(Braun 1950).

In southern Mississippi, thick-leaved scrubby oak forest or oak savannah covered most of the area 

with either openings between oak groves or the oaks spaced widely apart. The modern Coastal 

Plain environment came into its own about 3,050 B.C. and is affected by rising sea levels, drops in 

stream gradient, and rising ground water tables. 

Pearl River and Hancock counties are within the southeastern evergreen forest region (Braun 

1950). Original forests of the area were characterized by Longleaf Pine with Loblolly Pine-Slash 

Pine in Pearl River County and by Slash Pine with Longleaf Pine-Bay-Savannas in Hancock County 

(Figure 2-7). Pines were dominant and hardwoods grew along the steams (Nichols 1983:45).

2.7 MODERN CLIMATE

In Hancock County the average temperature during the winter is 52 degrees F and the average low 

is 43 degrees F. In summer the average temperature is 81 degrees F and the average high is 89 

degrees F. Average yearly rainfall is 79 inches with most falling April through September. 

Thunderstorms occur on about 70 days each year and most occur in summer. Snow fall is rare. 

When snow is present it usually measures less than two inches and usually of short duration (Smith 

1981:1). 

In Pearl River County the average temperature during the winter is 53 degrees F and the average 

low is 42 degrees F. In summer the average temperature is 81 degrees F and the average high is 91 

degrees F. Average yearly rainfall is 61 inches with most falling April through September. 

Thunderstorms occur on about 70 days each year and most occur in summer. Snow fall is rare. 

When snow is present it usually measures less than two inches and usually of short duration 

(Nichols 1983:1).
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Environment

2-15 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Figure 2-6: Hydrology of the Proposed PBRR Corridor
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Environment

2-16 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Figure 2-7: Historic Forest Habitation of the Proposed PBRR Corridor
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Environment

2-17 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

2.8 FLORA

Commercial woodland covers approximately 76 percent of Hancock County and 67 percent in Pearl 

River County. These commercial woodlands are composed of five dominate forest types: the 

longleaf slash pine, the loblolly-shortleaf pine, the oak-pine, the oak-hickory, and the oak-gumcypress (Nichols 1983:34; Smith 1981:31).

2.9 FAUNA

Some species originally inhabiting Perl River and Hancock counties included wolves, panthers, 

deer, and turkey. Mass deforestation prior to World War II eliminated the woodland habitat for 

needed most of these species. Today Pearl River and Hancock County have a large and varied 

population of wildlife. Whitetail deer, turkey, and squirrel inhibit the wooded areas. Bobwhite, 

quail, dove, cottontail, meadowlark, and many types of songbirds are present in non-wooded areas. 

The wetlands support wood ducks, mallards, Canadian geese, rails, shore birds, coots, cranes, and 

snipe along with muskrat, mink, nutria, otter, beaver, raccoon, alligators, turtles, and crawfish 

(Nicholas 1983:45; Smith 1981:33).

2.10 PAST AND PRESENT LAND USES

Hancock County is mostly agricultural, but it is also the site of several industries such as forest 

products, seafood production, marine concrete structures, utilities, construction, munitions, and 

space exploration and development (NASA) (Smith 1981:2).

Present land use for the proposed PBRR corridor was derived from the National Land Cover 

Database compiled in 2006 and based on the classification scheme developed by Huang et al. 

(2004). The land cover classification data was created by a combination of Landsat imagery and 

ancillary data. The combined image data is then generalized to a one-acre minimum mapping unit. 

An algorithm is then used to compare the pixel data against known values resulting in a product 

that identifies land cover type for the pixel. Twelve types of land cover are identified within the 

proposed PBRR corridor (Figure 2-8). Table 2-1 summarizes the land use data. Each classification is 

given below.
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Environment

2-18 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Table 2-1: Land Use Classification for the Proposed PBRR Corridor

Land Classification Acers Hectares Percentage

Open Water 1 1 0.2%

Developed, Open Space 22 9 3.9%

Developed, Low Intensity 7 3 1.3%

Developed, Medium Intensity 2 1 0.3%

Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay) 2 1 0.4%

Evergreen Forest 152 61 26.4%

Mixed Forest 1 1 0.1%

Shrub/Scrub 188 76 32.7%

Grassland/Herbaceous 33 13 5.7%

Cultivated Crops 6 2 1.0%

Woody Wetlands 149 60 25.9%

Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 12 5 2.1%

Total 575 233 100.0%
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Environment

2-19 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Figure 2-8: Land Use Classification of the Proposed PBRR Corridor
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Environment

2-20 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Open water are areas of open water, generally with less than 25 percent cover of vegetation or soil.

Developed, open space areas are areas with a mixture of some constructed materials, but mostly 

vegetation in the form of lawn grasses. Impervious surfaces account for less than 20% of total 

cover. These areas most commonly include large-lot single-family housing units, parks, golf courses, 

and vegetation planted in developed settings for recreation, erosion control, or aesthetic purposes.

Developed, low intensity areas are areas with a mixture of constructed materials and vegetation. 

Impervious surfaces account for 20 percent to 49 percent of total cover. These areas most 

commonly include single-family housing units.

Developed, medium intensity areas are areas with a mixture of constructed materials and 

vegetation. Impervious surfaces account for 50 percent to 79 percent of the total cover. These areas 

most commonly include single-family housing units.

Barren land (rock/sand/clay) areas are areas of bedrock, desert pavement, scarps, talus, slides, 

volcanic material, glacial debris, sand dunes, strip mines, gravel pits and other accumulations of 

earthen material. Generally, vegetation accounts for less than 15 percent of total cover.

Evergreen forest areas are areas dominated by trees generally greater than 5 meters tall, and 

greater than 20 percent of total vegetation cover. More than 75 percent of the tree species maintain 

their leaves all year. Canopy is never without green foliage.

Mixed forest areas are areas dominated by trees generally greater than five meters tall, and greater 

than 20 percent of total vegetation cover. Neither deciduous nor evergreen species are greater than 

75 percent of total tree cover.

Shrub/scrub areas are areas dominated by shrubs; less than five meters tall with shrub canopy 

typically greater than 20 percent of total vegetation. This class includes true shrubs, young trees in 

an early successional stage or trees stunted from environmental conditions.

Grassland/herbaceous areas are areas dominated by gramanoid or herbaceous vegetation, 

generally greater than 80 percent of total vegetation. These areas are not subject to intensive 

management such as tilling, but can be utilized for grazing.

Cultivated crops areas are areas used for the production of annual crops, such as corn, soybeans, 

vegetables, tobacco, and cotton, and also perennial woody crops such as orchards and vineyards. 

Crop vegetation accounts for greater than 20 percent of total vegetation. This class also includes all 

land being actively tilled. Although cultivated crops are identified as being within the proposed 

PBRR corridor, these areas are likely recently cleared forested areas.

Woody wetlands areas are areas where forest or shrubland vegetation accounts for greater than 

20% of vegetative cover and the soil or substrate is periodically saturated with or covered with 

water.

Emergent herbaceous wetlands areas are areas where perennial herbaceous vegetation accounts 

for greater than 80% of vegetative cover and the soil or substrate is periodically saturated with or 

covered with water.
3-1 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

3.0 REGIONAL SETTING, CULTURAL HISTORY, AND BACKGROUND RESEARCH

This chapter presents an overview of the regional settings and cultural history of the proposed 

PRBB corridor through a review of the prehistoric and historic cultural history for the region.

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The Native American chronology of the Mississippi coast can be broadly divided into the 

Paleoindian, Archaic, Gulf Formational, Woodland, Mississippi, Protohistoric, and Historic Periods. 

For Mississippi, the cultural histories of the first two periods, the Paleoindian and Archaic Periods, 

have been largely interpreted based on diagnostic lithic artifacts, especially as defined and 

summarized by McGahey (1996, 1997, 2004) (Table 3-1).

Table 3-1: Paleoindian and Archaic cultural chronology for Mississippi (based on McGahey 

1996, 1997, and 2004)

Date Period Diagnostic Projectile Point and Knife Forms

1200 B.C.

Late Archaic Various Stemmed/Barbed

3000 B.C.

Middle Archaic Various Broad-stemmed/Oversized "Cache" types

6000 B.C.

Early Archaic Early Corner-notched/Side-notched/Bifurcate base

8000 B.C.

Late Paleoindian Dalton/San Patrice

8500 B.C.

Middle Paleoindian Quad/Beaver Lake/Hinds/Coldwater

9000 B.C.

Early Paleoindian Clovis/Cumberland

10,000 B.C.

For this part of the Gulf Coast, the post-Archaic chronology, which is largely tied to diagnostic 

ceramic classes, has traditionally been organized into three parallel sequences of periods and 

phases, as follows:

1. Extreme southeastern Louisiana, which has more relevance for the western part of the

Sound (Table 3-2).

2. The Mississippi Coast, which is most relevant in the central portion of Mississippi Sound 

(Table 3-3).
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Regional Setting, Cultural History, and Background Research

3-2 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

3. Southwestern Alabama, which is most relevant to the eastern portion of Mississippi Sound

(Table 3-4).

Table 3-2: Chronology of Native American culture on the Extreme Eastern Louisiana Coast, ca. 

3000 B.C. to A.D. 1800

Cultural Chronology for the Extreme Eastern Louisiana Coast, 3000 B.C.* to A.D. 1800**

Date Period Culture Phase

A.D. 1800

Historic Various Cultures Various Tribes

A.D. 1700

Protohistoric

Pensacola (Mississippian)

Late Bayou Petre

A.D. 1550

Mississippian Early Bayou Petre

A.D. 1200

Coles Creek

Transitional Coles Creek St. Gabriel?

A.D. 1200

Coles Creek

Bayou Ramos

A.D. 1200

Bayou Cutler

A.D. 700

Baytown “Costal Troyville” Whitehall

A.D. 400

Marksville Marksville

Magnolia

A.D. 200

Labranche

A.D. 1

Tchula Tchefuncte

Beau Mire

250 B.C.

Pontchatrain

500 B.C.

Poverty Point Poverty Point

Garcia

Bayou Jasmine

1500 B.C.

Late Archaic Archaic Pearl River

3000 B.C.

* East of the Barataria Basin. ** Based on Weinstein et al. 1977 and Jeter et al. 1989.
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Regional Setting, Cultural History, and Background Research

3-3 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Table 3-3: Chronology of Native American Culture on the Eastern Mississippi Coast, ca. 2000 

B.C. to A.D. 1775

Cultural Chronology for the Eastern Mississippi Coast, 2000 B.C. to A.D. 1775*

Date Period Ceramic Series Phase

A.D. 1775

Colonial (E. Historic) Natchezan/Choctawan La Pointe

A.D. 1699

Protohistoric Pensacola** Bear Point

A.D. 1550

Mississippi

Pensacola** Singing River

A.D. 1350

Pensacola/Moundsville** Pinola

A.D. 1200

Late Woodland

Coles Creek/L. Weeden Island Tates Hammock

A.D. 800

Troyville/E. Weeden Island Graveline

A.D. 550

Middle Woodland

L. Marksville (Issaquena)/L. Santa Rosa Godsey

A.D. 250

E. Marksville/E. Santa Rosa Greenwood Island

100 B.C.

Late Gulf Formation Tchefuncte/Bayou La Batre/Alexander Apple Street

800 B.C.

Middle Gulf Formation Wheeler/St. Johns Claiborne

1200 B.C.

Late Archaic Preceramic Undefined

2000 B.C.

* Based on Blitz and Mann 2000 and Blitz and Downs 2011. ** Mississippian culture.
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Regional Setting, Cultural History, and Background Research

3-4 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Table 3-4: Paleoindian and Archaic Cultural Chronology for Southwest Alabama (based on 

several sources, including Anderson and Sassaman 1996, McGahey 2004, and Walthall 1980)

Paleoindian and Archaic Cultural Chronology for Southwest Alabama

Date Period Phase/Complex Horizon Markers

(Projectile Point and Knife Forms)

1000 or

1200 B.C. Late Archaic Cypress Point Various Stemmed

3000 B.C.

Middle Archaic Un-named Broad Stemmed/Morrow Mountain

6000 B.C.

Early Archaic Un-named Kirk/Big Sandy/Bifurcate Stemmed

8000 B.C.

Late Paleoindian Seed Tick Dalton/San Patrice

8500 B.C.

Middle Paleoindian Un-named Cumberland/Suwannee/Quad

8800 or

9000 B.C. Early Paleoindian Un-named Clovis 9500 or

10,000 B.C.

Each of these has been modified as subsequent researchers refined the post-Archaic sequences for 

the Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama coasts (Blitz and Mann 2000; Blitz and Downs 2011; 

Boudreaux 2009:13–14; Brown 2004; Fuller 1998; Jeter et al. 1989:Fig. 11; Price 2009; Weinstein 

et al. 1977).

Much of the current understanding of the prehistory of the Mississippi coast is based on the 

chronology which has largely been tested and refined in the eastern part of that coast. This 

chronology’s utility for the western part of the state remains to be thoroughly demonstrated. 

Therefore, the chronological framework of Blitz and Mann (2000), as modified by Blitz and Downs 

(2011), has been applied to the current proposed PRBB corridor with additional references to the 

chronology in general use in extreme southeastern Louisiana (Jeter et al. 1989; Weinstein et al. 

1977) (Table 3-2 and Table 3-3). Furthermore, the eastern Mississippi coast chronology 

incorporates two phase designations, Bear Point and Tates Hammock, initially defined for the 

southwestern Alabama region (Fuller 1985, 1996, 1998; Walthall 1980). It is problematical 

whether these phases have specific relevance to the western Mississippi Sound region (compare 

Table 3-3 and Table 3-4).

It should be noted that the post-Archaic stage chronologies used in the present report employ 

different nomenclatures for cultural periods (compare the far left columns in Table 3-2, Table 3-3, 

and Table 3-4). Those for coastal Louisiana (Coles Creek, Marksville, etc.) are derived from 

sequences initially defined in the Lower Mississippi Valley, while those for the Mississippi and 

Alabama coasts (Middle Woodland, Late Gulf Formational, etc.) are more closely aligned with 

chronologies in use east of the Lower Mississippi Valley. For economy of presentation, the latter 
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Regional Setting, Cultural History, and Background Research

3-5 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

period designators will be used when discussing the post-Archaic culture-history of coastal 

Mississippi.

3.2 PREHISTORIC PERIOD

3.2.1 Paleoindian and Archaic Stages (ca. 10,000 B.C. to 1,200 B.C.)

Although post-Archaic sites are relatively common on the Mississippi and Louisiana coasts, those 

representing the Paleoindian and Archaic stages are rare. The sparse Paleoindian and Archaic 

remains that have been reported typically occur as sporadic surface finds of diagnostic lithic 

artifacts, primarily projectile point/knife (PP/K) types (Blitz and Mann 2000:75; Greenwell 

1984:127–129).

For the state as a whole, McGahey (1996, 2004) has subdivided the Paleoindian and Archaic stages 

into a series of cultural periods largely based on the morphological characteristics of PP/Ks (Table 

3-1), most of which have yet to be documented for the immediate coastal region. The paucity of 

early sites and artifacts is probably due to the region’s geomorphological history. As a result of the 

Early Holocene warming trend, high water levels inundated the present coastal area, making it 

largely uninhabitable during much of the Early Paleoindian through Early Archaic periods (Blitz 

and Mann 2000:7–8). The habitable landforms that existed in the region at that time have been 

destroyed, submerged, or severely reworked by subsequent hydrological and geomorphological 

changes. As a result, the lack of data from in situ Early Paleoindian through Early Archaic period 

occupations prevents informed interpretations of other aspects of early Indian culture, such as 

settlement patterns and resource utilization, as they apply to the coast.

Early Paleoindian period PP/Ks (ca. 10,000 B.C. to 9000 B.C.) are characterized by large fluted 

lanceolate types such as Clovis and Cumberland. Middle Paleoindian period PP/Ks (ca. 9000 B.C. to 

8500 B.C.) are unfluted lanceolate types such as Quad, Beaver Lake, Coldwater, and Hinds. Late 

Paleoindian period types (ca. 8500 B.C. to 8000 B.C.) include Dalton and Dalton-like forms such as 

San Patrice. The Early Archaic period (ca. 8000 B.C. to 6000 B.C.) features early side-notched and 

corner-notched PP/K variants that often exhibit basal grinding. These include types such as Cache 

River, Greenbrier, Big Sandy, Hardin, Pine Tree, Decatur, Jude, Cave Springs, Stilwell, and Bolen.

Sites of the Middle Archaic period (ca. 6000 B.C. to 3000 B.C.) tend to occur on floodplains or on 

terraces near sizable streams (McGahey 1997). Although more than 200 sites dating to the Middle 

Archaic have been recorded in southern Mississippi, only limited data from excavations has been 

published (McGahey 1997). The rare Middle Archaic period PP/Ks recorded for southern 

Mississippi tend to conform to types such as Denton, Opossum Bayou, Morrow Mountain, White 

Springs, and St. Helena (McGahey 1997; 2004). Most feature broad blades and short, broad stems, 

often with thinned basal edges (McGahey 2004:87-135). Many are considerably larger than those of 

the previous Early Archaic period, suggesting they may have functioned as specialized blades or 

knives rather than projectile points. This trait culminated in oversized “cache blade” and “turkey 

tail” forms that may have been ceremonial or perhaps were emblematic of stone-working 

specialists (McGahey 2004:113–118).

A number of the cultural trends originating during the Middle Archaic continued and became more 

pronounced in the subsequent Late Archaic and Early Gulf Formational periods. The latter two 

culture-historical constructs are roughly coeval at ca. 3000 or 2500 B.C. to 1200 or 1000 B.C. 
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Regional Setting, Cultural History, and Background Research

3-6 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

However, the Early Gulf Formational period, as defined by John Walthall and Ned Jenkins (see 

below), is not represented in the archaeological record of the north-central Gulf Coast region 

summarized here.

In terms of material culture, Late Archaic period components in Mississippi tend to feature a variety 

of stemmed or barbed PP/Ks made of non-local materials as well as locally available stone 

(McGahey 2004:136–186). The majority are characterized by straight or contracting stems that lack 

the thinned basal edges of many Middle Archaic types. An important new artifact class was the 

stone bowl, usually made of steatite but occasionally made of sandstone. Along with increasingly 

diverse assemblages of polished stone tools and ornaments, this earliest evidence of durable 

containers probably reflects more sedentary settlement patterns during the Late Archaic.

Published information is available for only three sites in the Mississippi coast region with definite 

Late Archaic period components (ca. 3000 B.C. to 1200 B.C.): Cedarland (22HA506), Escatawpa I 

(22JA543), and Escatawpa III (22JA545) (Blitz and Mann 2000:75–76). Prior to their demise, 

Cedarland and the nearby Claiborne site (22HA501) were large, elevated semi-circular 

constructions of earth and shell located near the mouth of the Pearl River (Gagliano and Webb 

1970; Lewis 1988). Cedarland was pre-ceramic Late Archaic in age and was the type site for the 

Pearl River phase (Blitz and Mann 2000:75; Gagliano 1963:116). Cultural materials from the site 

included the following: Gary, Macon, Pontchartrain, and Kent PP/Ks made of both local and nonlocal stone; a variety of polished stone atlatl weights and plummets; red jasper beads; and 

amorphous baked-clay lumps associated with clay-lined features (Blitz and Mann 2000:75). All of 

these traits anticipate developments that characterized the later Poverty Point culture and the socalled Poverty Point exchange network (Webb 1977), as represented on the Mississippi coast by the 

nearby Claiborne site (see below). The limited artifact assemblages from the two excavated Late 

Archaic sites on the eastern Mississippi Gulf Coast, Escatawpa I and III, provide little additional data 

for interpreting the Late Archaic culture-history of that part of the coast (Blitz and Mann 2000:75–-

76).

3.2.2 Gulf Formational Stage (ca. 2,500 B.C. to 100 B.C.)

Walthall and Jenkins (1976) defined the Gulf Formational Stage for the transition from the Late 

Archaic period to the Woodland period in the Gulf Coastal Plain. Although they include the 

Mississippi coast in their western sub-region (Walthall 1980:79; Walthall and Jenkins 1976:43), the 

earliest Gulf Formational sites lie well east of Mississippi (Smith et al. 2010). To date, no 

components of the Early Gulf Formational period (ca. 2500 B.C. to 1200 B.C.) have been identified in 

the state.

3.2.2.1 Middle Gulf Formational Period (c.a. 1,200 B.C. to 800 B.C.)

In terms of material culture, the Middle Gulf Formational period is characterized by the 

introduction of ceramics into the typical Late Archaic artifact lithic assemblage. In the north-central 

Gulf Coast region, these include fiber-tempered pottery and the rare occurrence of so-called 

“temperless” pottery similar to the St. Johns series. Both seem to have originated in the southern 

Atlantic region and the eastern part of the Gulf Coastal Plain during the Early Gulf Formational 

period. They subsequently spread westward across the Gulf Coastal Plain to the Mississippi Valley, 

although the St. Johns series seems to have played less of a role in this diffusion than fiber 

tempering.
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Regional Setting, Cultural History, and Background Research

3-7 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

3.2.2.1.1 Claiborne Phase (ca. 1,200 B.C. to 800 B.C.)

During the Middle Gulf Formational Claiborne phase, Mississippi Sound populations participated in 

the expansion of the Poverty Point exchange network (Blitz and Mann 2000:97). The name Poverty 

Point is derived from the type site, an area of massive earthwork construction in northeast 

Louisiana. Poverty Point was a cultural center with trade networks and influence extending 

throughout the Lower Mississippi Valley and beyond (Webb 1977). Most of the data concerning the 

related phase in the Mississippi Gulf Coast region comes from the Claiborne site (22HA501) (Blitz 

and Mann 2000; Gagliano and Webb 1970). Claiborne was a ceremonial center in the western 

portion of the region and was central to the predominantly east-west flow of nonlocal materials 

that linked the region to Poverty Point centers in the Lower Mississippi Valley and to smaller 

communities as far east as northwestern Florida. Fiber-tempered and St. Johns-like pottery 

appeared in the Mississippi Sound region for the first time during the Claiborne phase (Blitz and 

Mann 2000:97–98).

Aside from the large type site, Claiborne phase components are not well documented for the 

eastern Mississippi coast, due in part to a paucity of reported excavation data and in part to the 

mixed multicomponent nature of many Gulf Formational stage sites in the region. These factors 

have limited the systematic assessment of other attributes of the phase such as settlement patterns 

and broad subsistence practices. Most sites with probable Claiborne phase components are small 

dispersed midden locales, occasionally with burials, although the Big Greenwood Island site 

(22JA516) may have served as a smaller secondary center (see the discussion of the later 

Greenwood Island phase below). To the west, several Poverty Point-related sites in the Lake 

Pontchartrain area, although traditionally identified with the local Garcia and Bayou Jasmine 

phases (Weinstein et al. 1977) (see Table 3-2), may represent part of a broader settlement system 

associated with the Claiborne center (Blitz and Mann 2000:22).

3.2.2.2 Late Gulf Formational Period (c.a. 800 B.C. to 100 B.C.)

The estimated date ranges for the Late Gulf Formational period sites on the north-central Gulf Coast 

vary depending on the specific region. Generally, the period began between 1000 and 700 B.C. and 

ended between 250 and 100 B.C., making it approximately contemporaneous with the Early 

Woodland period elsewhere (Brown 2004:574). It was characterized by increasing regional 

diversification following a decline in the influence of Poverty Point culture. The trait of fiber 

tempering waned as the Bayou La Batre and Tchefuncte cultures emerged in the central and 

western Gulf Coastal Plain, respectively (Blitz and Mann 2000; Brown 2004; Fuller 1998; Weinstein 

1986). Ceramics of the Alexander culture, which is centered in the Fall Line Hills, upper Tombigbee 

Valley, and Tennessee Valley regions north of the Coastal Plain, have also been found in Late Gulf 

Formational contexts on the Mississippi coast (Blitz and Mann 2000; Greenwell 1984).

The Tchula period of the Lower Mississippi Valley and coastal Louisiana (see Table 3-2) is 

approximately coeval with the Late Gulf Formational period. On the Louisiana coast and along 

adjacent portions of the Texas and Mississippi coasts, the dominant culture at this time was 

Tchefuncte (Brown 2004; Jeter et al. 1989:111; Weinstein 1986). Distinguishing ceramic traits for 

the Tchefuncte culture include coarse, poorly fired temperless pottery. Vessels often have conical or 

wedge-shaped podal supports and designs featuring zones of incisions, punctations, pinching, or 

stamping (Brown 2004:576; Phillips 1970; Weinstein 1986; Weinstein and Rivet 1978). A variety of 

animal and plant remains have been reported for a number of Tchefuncte earth and shell middens 
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Regional Setting, Cultural History, and Background Research

3-8 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

in the coastal region, indicating a culture well-adapted to the diverse marsh environment. Some 

Tchefuncte culture sites, such as the Lafayette Mounds (16SM17), feature low conical earthen 

mounds, although the degree to which mound construction by Tchefuncte peoples was widespread 

remains somewhat contentious (Hays and Weinstein 2010).

For the eastern Louisiana coast, the Tchefuncte culture has been chronologically divided into the 

Pontchartrain phase, ca. 500 B.C. to 250 B.C., and the Beau Mire phase, ca. 250 B.C. to A.D. 1 (Jeter et 

al. 1989; Weinstein 1986) (see Table 3-2). These phases may be more applicable to adjacent 

portions of the western Mississippi coast than those defined for the eastern coast (cf., Table 3-3).

3.2.2.2.1 Apple Street Phase (ca. 800 B.C. to 100 B.C.)

Blitz and Mann (2000) defined the Apple Street phase for the Late Gulf Formational period on the 

Mississippi Gulf Coast. During this phase, the Claiborne center was abandoned as the Poverty Point 

exchange network waned and fiber tempered pottery began to be replaced by ceramics of the 

Bayou La Batre, Alexander, and Tchefuncte series (Blitz and Mann 2000:97–98). Although the 

distributions of these series were centered to the west (Tchefuncte), east (Bayou La Batre), and 

north (Alexander), they overlap in the Mississippi Sound region (Brown 2004; Blitz and Mann 

2000; Greenwell 1984). Excavations in the region indicate Poverty Point artifacts continued to 

occur although in smaller numbers (Blitz and Mann 2000; Greenwell 1984). Apple Street phase 

subsistence and settlement patterns are not well known, although limited data indicates sites 

typically feature shell or earth middens (Blitz and Mann 2000).

3.2.3 Woodland Stage (ca. 100 B.C. to A.D. 1200)

3.2.3.1 Middle Woodland Period (c.a. 100 B.C. to A.D. 550)

For much of the Southeast, including portions of the north-central Gulf Coast, the Middle Woodland 

period saw the spread of a distinctive pottery style and certain aspects of mortuary ceremonialism 

related to Midwestern Hopewellian culture (Brown 2004; Walthall 1975, 1977). The apparent 

diffusion of these traits may have resulted from the activities of traders participating in a farranging exchange network sometimes referred to as the Hopewell Interaction Sphere (Caldwell 

1964).

Middle Woodland period occupations in the southern part of the Lower Mississippi Valley and the 

Louisiana coast are equated with the Marksville period and culture (see Table 3-2). According to 

Toth (1974), Marksville peoples lived in villages organized at a tribal level. In addition to diagnostic 

pottery types, conical burial mounds, long distance trade in exotic items such as copper artifacts 

and marine shells were characteristic of the culture (Brown 2004:576-577; Toth 1988:29–73). 

Interments are generally associated with grave goods, some of which were manufactured from 

exotic raw materials such as copper (Neuman 1984:142–168; Toth 1974, 1988).

In the Lower Mississippi Valley and adjacent coast regions, ceramics during the Middle Woodland 

period were increasingly tempered with grog, an innovation that was technologically significant as 

it permitted greater efficiency in direct-fire cooking (Blitz and Mann 2000:98). Ceramics typically 

feature decorations executed by incising, stamping, and punctating, most often occurring as 

punctated or stamped zones or bands outlined by broad-line incisions. Farther east in 

southwestern Alabama and the western Florida panhandle, a closely related culture is known as 

Santa Rosa (Bense 1992; Fuller 1998:13–15). Sometimes referred to as “Porter Hopewell” (Walthall 
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Regional Setting, Cultural History, and Background Research

3-9 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

1975) or “Porter Marksville” (Wimberly 1960), Santa Rosa culture featured Marksville-like vessel 

shapes and decorative styles but with greater variability in tempering attributes, especially sand,

plus the occurrence of ceramics more closely affiliated with the late Deptford and Swift Creek 

cultures to the north and east.

The persistence of shared decorative styles (Marksville, Issaquena, Santa Rosa, Coles Creek, and 

Weeden Island) in the Lower Mississippi Valley and across a large portion of the northern Gulf 

Coast during the Middle Woodland and Late Woodland periods has sometimes been characterized 

as the Gulf Tradition. The roots of the Gulf Tradition may lie with earlier incised, punctated, and 

stamped Tchefuncte and Alexander types.

3.2.3.1.1 Greenwood Island Phase (ca. 100 B.C. to A.D. 250)

Blitz and Mann (2000) defined the Greenwood Island phase for the early part of the Middle 

Woodland period in the eastern Mississippi Sound region. In addition to grog tempering, ceramic 

innovations include zoned rocker stamping plus hatched, crosshatched, or herringbone-decorated 

rims. Ceramics diagnostic of the Greenwood Island phase include early Marksville-related types 

plus surviving variants of Tchefuncte, Alexander, and Bayou La Batre wares and minor occurrences 

of late Deptford and early Swift Creek types (Blitz and Mann 2000:26–28, Table 3-4). 

Thus far, no Greenwood Island phase burial mounds have been identified in coastal Mississippi, 

although several unexcavated mounds in the region may date to that time. Some of the best 

evidence for the phase comes from Big Greenwood Island (22JA516), a multicomponent site located 

on the eastern portion of the Mississippi coast (Boudreaux 2009:136). Blitz and Mann (2000:28) 

summarize the data from the Greenwood Island phase component and suggest it included a 

specialized cemetery area. The site featured secondary burials, some with items such as copper 

beads and a copper ear spool, artifacts that are typical of Marksville-related components affiliated 

with the so-called Hopewell exchange network. As with that site, many of the middens identified on 

the eastern Mississippi coast with Gulf Formational components also feature Greenwood Island 

phase components, suggesting some degree of continuity in settlement patterns and subsistence 

practices.

For the Mississippi coast as a whole, it might be expected that Middle Woodland ceramics from sites 

at the western extreme would exhibit similarities to contemporary ceramics in southeastern 

Louisiana, while those at the eastern extreme would tend to be more similar to contemporary 

assemblages from southwestern Alabama sites. For example, the roughly contemporary LaBranche 

phase (ca. A.D. 1 to A.D. 200) has been defined for early Middle Woodland (or early Marksville) 

period manifestations in the extreme eastern portion of the Louisiana coast (Jeter et al. 1989:139; 

Phillips 1970:898; Weinstein et al. 1977) (see Table 3-2). Originally recognized in contexts 

featuring late Tchefuncte ceramics, “pure” LaBranche phase components lacking Tchefuncte wares 

were subsequently identified in the Pontchartrain Basin eastward into St. Bernard Parish. In terms 

of ceramics, LaBranche phase components are most readily identified by the presence of Baytown 

Plain, var. Marksville and especially Mabin Stamped, var. Crooks. As with the Greenwood Island 

phase, artifacts of imported copper have been reported from LaBranche phase burials, signifying its 

participation in the Hopewell interaction sphere.

Similarly, the Blakeley phase of southwestern Alabama is an Early Woodland period manifestation 

(ca. 100 B.C. to A.D. 150/200) exhibiting influences from early Marksville culture (Fuller 1998:12–
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Regional Setting, Cultural History, and Background Research

3-10 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

13). However, because its roots are with Bayou La Batre rather than Tchefuncte culture, and 

because of its interactions with late Deptford and early Swift Creek to the east, Blakeley phase 

assemblages tend to feature a much higher frequency of sand tempered wares. As with both the 

LaBranche and Greenwood Island phases, Blakeley phase sites have produced exotic artifacts and 

materials, reflecting some degree of participation in the Hopewellian Interaction Sphere.

3.2.3.1.2 Godsey Phase (ca. A.D. 250 to A.D. 550)

Initially defined with a chronological span of ca. A.D. 200–400 (Blitz and Mann 2000:38–41), the 

dates for the Godsey phase were subsequently revised to ca. A.D. 250–550 based on the results of 

recent excavations at the Graveline Mound site (22JA503) (Blitz and Downs 2011) During this 

phase, there was a reduction in nonlocal and exotic artifacts and materials, suggesting a decline in 

the far-ranging trade or exchange network (Blitz and Mann 2000). However, the increased sharing 

of ceramic decorative styles with contemporary phases to the west (Magnolia phase) and the east 

(Porter phase) indicate a strengthening of the Gulf Tradition (Blitz and Mann 2000:38–39; Fuller 

1998:13). Grog-tempered late Marksville (Issaquena) wares dominate the pottery assemblages 

from Godsey phase sites. They include Churupa Punctated, var. Thornton; Marksville Incised, var. 

Yokena; and Marksville Stamped, vars. Godsey, Marksville, and Troyville. Minor occurrences of sandtempered pottery similar to those of the Porter phase in southwestern Alabama (e.g., Basin Bayou 

Incised and Alligator Bayou Incised) have been recorded for some Godsey phase components in the 

eastern Mississippi Sound region (Blitz and Mann 2000:39). However, the predominance of the 

Issaquena-related grog-tempered types indicates the strongest cultural influences at that time were 

coming from the west rather than the east.

To date, most reported Godsey phase sites have been shell middens, although the Jackson Landing 

site (22HA515), a large earthwork complex overlooking the western Mississippi Sound, may have a 

component similar to the Godsey phase (Blitz and Mann 2000:98). However, recent excavations and 

associated radiocarbon dates indicate the earliest component at Jackson Landing may be more 

similar to the subsequent Graveline phase than the Godsey phase (Boudreaux 2011). On Cat Island, 

the Middle Spit site (22HR1169) features what may be a small conical burial mound (Wharton et al. 

2013:105–108). It suggests the Late Marksville-related components recorded for that site, as well 

others on Cat Island, may be more closely associated with the Magnolia phase mounds and middens 

recorded for nearby St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana rather than with the more easterly Godsey phase.

3.2.3.2 Late Woodland Period (c.a. A.D. 550 to A.D. 1200)

Throughout much of the Southeast, the Late Woodland period is associated with a reduction of 

burial ceremonialism and with decreases in the far-reaching trade in non-local or “exotic” artifacts 

and raw materials. However, because of the florescence of Coles Creek culture in the Lower 

Mississippi Valley and Weeden Island culture in southern Georgia and northwestern Florida, The 

Gulf Tradition remained strong, as reflected by the continued sharing of pottery decorative styles. 

One of the most significant technological advances associated with the Late Woodland period was 

the bow and arrow. Two new PP/K types are associated with the introduction of the bow and 

arrow: the triangular-shaped Madison and the corner-notched Collins arrow points (McGahey 

2004).

The flat-topped platform mound appeared during the Late Woodland, signaling important changes 

in settlement patterns and social, ceremonial, and political systems. Platform mounds served as 
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Regional Setting, Cultural History, and Background Research

3-11 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

substructures for religious and/or civic buildings rather than as specialized burial mounds 

(Neuman and Hawkins 1993). In addition, platform mounds were often arranged around open 

plazas where ceremonial activities occurred, while village areas tended to be located away from 

these centers. Several researchers, including Gibson (1978) and Neuman (1984), believe this 

change in settlement pattern indicates a move to a more centralized political organization.

In the southern portion of the Lower Mississippi Valley, the Late Woodland period is divided into 

the Troyville (A.D. 500 to 700) and the Coles Creek (A.D. 700 to 1000) periods. In the Coastal Pine 

Meadows region, Lewis (1988) has deemed the Late Woodland period as one of the least known 

periods in the Mississippi Gulf Coast. According to Morgan (1992), decreased site density on the 

coast at this time may imply a population decrease. Although most sites from this period are small 

shell middens, a major exception is the Graveline Mound site (22JA503). This site consists of seven 

mounds, including six conical and one ramped platform mound (Blitz and Mann 1993; 2000; Blitz 

and Downs 2011; Boudreaux 2009). Filmed and painted ceramics recovered from the platform 

mound are associated with the distinctive Quafalorma pottery horizon style, which extended from 

coastal Louisiana to coastal Florida (Belmont and Williams 1981; Blitz and Mann 1993).

3.2.3.2.1 Graveline Phase (ca. A.D. 550 to A.D. 800)

Blitz and Mann (2000) defined the Graveline phase for the early part of the Late Woodland period 

in the Mississippi Sound region. Although their initial estimated date range for the phase was ca. 

A.D. 400 to 700, data from subsequent excavations at the Graveline Mound site has resulted in a 

revised range of ca. A.D. 550 to 800 (Blitz and Downs 2011). Late Woodland culture in the Gulf 

Coastal Plain reflects influences from several directions (Brown 2004). Similarities in ceramic styles

suggest that Mississippi Sound populations remained in the greater cultural sphere of the Lower 

Mississippi Valley, as reflected by grog-tempered ceramics of the so-called “Coastal Troyville” 

culture. However, the secondary but consistent occurrence of sand tempered early Weeden Island 

pottery implies interaction with eastern coastal populations as well (Blitz and Mann 2000:99).

During the Graveline phase, there is little evidence of imported lithic materials or artifacts at 

mound and habitation sites, and stone tools and debitage are uncommon for the phase in general

(Blitz and Mann 2000).

3.2.3.2.2 Tates Hammock Phase (ca. A.D. 800 to A.D. 1200)

In regards to ceramics, the Tates Hammock phase represents the coastal expression of late Weeden 

Island and Coles Creek cultures. Tates Hammock was originally defined by Walthall (1980) for the 

entire Late Woodland period in the Mobile Bay region, where it was said to feature sand-tempered 

plain and check-stamped pottery plus so-called “classic” Weeden Island incised, punctated, and 

pinched types (Fuller 1998:16–18; Walthall 1980:171–172). Subsequent research in Mobile Bay 

and the Alabama coast region showed that for that area, at least, the phase could be sub-divided 

based on the relative frequencies of check stamping versus the other Weeden Island decorative 

types, with check stamping increasing in frequency through time (Fuller 1998). This resulted in the 

Tates Hammock phase being limited to the earlier part of the Late Woodland period (ca. A.D. 400 to 

750), with the Coden phase being defined for the later part of the period (ca. A.D. 750 to 1100) 

(Fuller 1998; 2003). Subsequent research on the Alabama coast has suggested the period of ca. A.D. 

400 to 650 could be further factored out of this redefined Tates Hammock phase based on the 

complete absence of check stamping and the occurrence of ceramic types resembling surviving 
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Regional Setting, Cultural History, and Background Research

3-12 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

variants of Middle Woodland types such as Basin Bayou Incised (Dumas 2009:101–102, Fig. 6.5). 

The latter types occur with vessel forms and decorative styles typically associated with early 

Weeden Island pottery assemblages to the east and so-called “Coastal Troyville” assemblages to the 

west. Thus, this currently unnamed early Late Woodland complex might be expected to show some 

similarities in chronology and content to the Graveline phase.

Ceramics characteristic of the Tates Hammock phase in coastal Mississippi are grog-tempered Coles 

Creek types plus secondary occurrences of sand-tempered Weeden Island types. Additionally, types 

typically associated with Miller culture to the north, including Furrs Cord Marked and Mulberry 

Creek Cord Marked, occur in the Mississippi Sound region for the first time (Blitz and Mann 2000). 

As in southwestern Alabama, the introduction of cord marked pottery during the Late Woodland 

period probably represents growing influences from other pottery traditions as the Gulf Tradition 

began to wane, a trend that also seems to be reflected in the increasing frequency of check stamped 

pottery (Blitz and Mann 200:45; Fuller 1998:16).

Small stemmed and triangular arrowheads mark the arrival of bow-and-arrow technology on the 

Mississippi coast (Blitz and Mann 2000). Tates Hammock sites on the Mississippi Sound consist 

primarily of middens, although Site 22JA504 did contain a burial (Greenwell 1984). Although no 

Tates Hammock burial mounds have been excavated in coastal Mississippi, based on the presence 

of such mounds at Tates Hammock phase sites in Alabama, Morgan (1992) surmised that they 

probably exist on the Mississippi coast as well.

In addition to the greater frequency of Coles Creek versus Weeden Island ceramics, the primary 

difference between the Tates Hammock phase as it is defined in southeastern Mississippi as 

opposed to southwestern Alabama is that it subsumes the time period associated with the terminal 

Weeden Island-related Coden phase in Alabama (compare Table 3-3 and Table 3-4). These 

differences may indicate the need for new phase definitions, especially for the western part of the 

Mississippi coast, where pottery assemblages reflect stronger similarities to Coles Creek-related 

phases such as Bayou Cutler and Bayou Ramous in nearby coastal Louisiana.

3.2.4 Mississippian Stage (ca. A.D. 1200 B.C. to A.D. 1550)

For this report, the term “Mississippi” is used for the chronological period ca. A.D. 1200 to 1550, 

while the term “Mississippian” is reserved for the broader late prehistoric/protohistoric cultural 

tradition or stage that included regional cultures such as Pensacola, Moundville, Ft. Walton, and 

Plaquemine. Although some chronologies also use “Mississippian” for the period designation, that 

usage does not conform to the majority of those employed in the Southeast, including the northcentral Gulf Coast region (cf., Blitz and Mann 2000; Brown 2004:581–585; Jeter et. al 1989:Fig. 11; 

Morgan 1992; Phillips 1970:Fig. 450).

The beginning of the Mississippi period is marked by the appearance of emergent Mississippian 

culture in the northern part of the Lower Mississippi Valley and throughout much of the interior 

Southeast. Mound sites were larger and more centralized, whereas non-mound sites were smaller 

but more numerous. Generally, Mississippian cultural characteristics include shell-tempered 

pottery, maize agriculture, and the emergence of a religious and social elite. The consensus view of 

Mississippian societies is one of chiefdoms supported by floodplain maize agriculture (Blitz and 

Mann 2000). In many parts of the Southeast, there was a hierarchy of site types. Special-purpose 

camps and farmsteads were scattered throughout the region. The latter were sites where nuclear 
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Regional Setting, Cultural History, and Background Research

3-13 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

and extended families lived in small huts and cultivated maize, beans, and squash. The diet was 

based primarily on the consumption of cultivated plants, but it also included the use of game and 

wild plants. Many of the scattered farmsteads appear to have been affiliated with mound centers. 

Archaeological research has shown that these centers were occupied for long periods, supported

elite or ceremonial structures, and frequently contained burials. Palisade walls surrounded many of 

the larger settlements. There was differential access to goods, and some sites show evidence of 

specialization in the production of certain classes of artifacts (Smith et al. 2010:10).

Plaquemine culture is a term used to denote the indigenous Mississippi period population of most 

of the Lower Mississippi Valley. It features the first definite evidence of a ranked society in the late 

prehistoric period (Kidder 1992). In regards to ceramics, Plaquemine assemblages reflect surviving 

technological traits of the preceding Coles Creek culture combined with new decorative styles and 

vessel shapes believed to have originated with early Mississippian cultures to the north.

Much less is known about contemporaneous coastal societies that possessed a material culture 

similar to the Mississippians. Although the Coastal Pine Meadows region has fewer areas suitable 

for horticultural production compared to the rich floodplains of the interior river valleys, there are 

more Mississippian sites recorded in this region than for any of the preceding periods (Morgan 

1992). The majority of these sites appear to be short-term occupations related to specific resource 

extraction activities. However, there are some sites along the coast that suggest larger, more 

permanent settlements, including those that have platform mounds (Smith et al. 2010:11). One 

such site is Singing River (22JA508, 22JA520, 22JA578) in Pascagoula (Blitz and Mann 2000; 

Boudreaux 2009; Greenwell 1984; Morgan 1992). The Singing River site is an extensive earth-shell 

midden with a mound that has been damaged by later activities (Blitz and Mann 2000).

Early excavations at Singing River encountered burials in the midden deposit as well as post molds, 

ceramics, and burned wood associated with the mound (Blitz and Mann 2000:49). More recently, 

archaeologists excavated two areas of undisturbed midden (Blitz and Mann 2000:49–52). Pinola 

Unit 1 produced (in order of importance) grog-tempered, shell-tempered, shell and grog-tempered, 

and sand-tempered ceramics. Decorated pottery from this unit manifested a blend of attributes 

associated with Coles Creek/Plaquemine culture to the west and Moundville/Pensacola culture to 

the east. Another unit, Lewis Unit 1, produced mostly shell-tempered plain pottery and

Moundville/Pensacola decorative types, indicating strong associations with Mississippian cultures 

centered to the north and east.

Finally, Morgan (1992) suggests the thick midden and substantial number of artifacts at the Deer 

Island site (22HR500) imply a permanent occupation. Remnants of a poorly documented mound on 

Deer Island from which burials and shell-tempered ceramics were recovered, plus the presence of 

possible daub (suggesting structures) support his supposition (Blitz and Mann 2000:53–54).

3.2.4.1 Middle Mississippi Period (c.a. A.D. 1200 to A.D. 1350)

3.2.4.1.1 Pinola Phase (ca. A.D. 1200 to A.D. 1350)

The Pinola phase represents the initial appearance of shell-tempered pottery and mixed shell-grogtempered pottery on the Mississippi coast, marking a fusion of the coastal Coles Creek pottery

tradition (i.e., late Gulf Tradition) with the Middle Mississippian pottery tradition (Blitz and Mann 

2000:55-59). Blitz and Mann (2000:99) proposed that the Pinola ceramic complex was the “product 
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Regional Setting, Cultural History, and Background Research

3-14 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

of indigenous producers of late Coastal Coles Creek/early Plaquemine series pottery exposed to 

Middle Mississippian tradition ideas, products, or people emanating from the interior Southeast.”

Other significant traits of the phase include the adoption of maize agriculture, local salt production, 

and ceramic vessel shape and tempering adaptations probably related to the efficient processing of 

maize (Blitz and Mann 2000:99). Pottery types associated with the Pinola phase include Moundville 

Incised, var. Moundville (Moundville series) and D’Olive Incised (Pensacola Series) in addition to the 

Lower Mississippi Valley types such as Winterville Incised, Parkin Punctated, plus the saltpan type 

Kimmswick Fabric Impressed (Smith et al. 2010:11). In addition, a human effigy pipe, which is a 

widespread Mississippian symbolic artifact, was reported for the Singing River site (Blitz and Mann 

2000:99, cover illustration; Greenwell 1984:Fig. 5.14 [misidentified as Weeden Island]).

3.2.4.2 Late Mississippi Period (c.a. A.D. 1350 to A.D. 1550)

3.2.4.2.1 Singing River Phase (ca. A.D. 1350 to A.D. 1550)

The Singing River phase is the local expression of the Pensacola culture, which was centered in 

southwestern Alabama and extended both eastward and westward along the northern Gulf Coast 

(Blitz and Mann 2000:99). In regards to ceramics, it is associated with the Middle Mississippian

tradition as manifested by the Moundville and Pensacola pottery series. A high frequency of a 

regional variety, Moundville Incised, var. Singing River, helps distinguish the Singing River phase 

from the approximately contemporary Bottle Creek I and Bottle Creek II phases to the east (Blitz 

and Mann 2000:99; Fuller 1998:26-28). To the west, the early part of the Bayou Petre phase may be 

closely related to the Singing River phase (Weinstein et al. 1977; Weinstein and Dumas 2008). Both 

exhibit high frequencies of Moundville/Pensacola-related decorative styles, and both share a 

ceramic attribute that seems to be diagnostic of coastal Mississippian culture from southeastern 

Louisiana to southwestern Alabama: a prevalence of blocky or angular shell tempering that is 

visibly different from the flaky mussel shell tempering of most Mississippian pottery from other 

regions (Fuller 1996; Richard Weinstein, personal communication 2013).

Insufficient survey work has been completed to delineate the western and northern spatial extents of 

the Singing River phase. Similarly, the paucity of research has limited the interpretations of broader 

cultural patterns such as settlement patterns and subsistence. Non-mound sites appear to have 

functioned as semi-permanent occupations for food extraction purposes, as represented by numerous 

small to large shell middens (Blitz and Mann 2000). The Deer Island site, with its extensive oyster 

midden deposits, and the Singing River site, with its shell middens and platform mound, suggest Singing 

River phase settlement patterns, social structure, and subsistence practices may have been similar to 

those of other Mississippian cultures associated with the northern Gulf Coast. However, although both 

appear to have major components dating to the Singing River phase, additional testing is necessary to 

confirm the associations.

3.3 PROTOHISTORIC AND COLONIAL PERIODS (A.D. 1450-1798)

The Choctaw were the largest group (up to 200,000) inhabiting Mississippi and occupied most of 

the southern part of the state (Busbee 2005:18). The Choctaw were often in conflict with their 

neighbors to the north, the Chickasaw, who occupied all of the northern part of the state, as well as 

western Tennessee. To the west and along the Mississippi between Natchez and Vicksburg, the 

Natchez were present. Further south and mostly along the Gulf Coast lived smaller tribes like the 

Acolapissa, Biloxi, and Pascagoula tribes (Akin and Bolton 2002:11-16). Oral history of the Choctaw 
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Regional Setting, Cultural History, and Background Research

3-15 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

places them within Mississippi hundreds of years before the first European contact. Although this 

history places their origins to the west, more recent ethnohistorical and archaeological research 

suggests they likely came from the southwest, east, and north (Galloway 1998). Their largest 

settlement was located at Nanih Waiya at the head waters of the Pearl River in Winston County, 

Mississippi. The mound at this site stands 20 feet high with its base measuring 100 feet by 218 feet. 

As many as forty to fifty, Choctaw villages were scattered across central Mississippi (Busbee 

2005:18; Galloway 1998). 

3.3.1 The French Colonial Period

Although French settlement of this area and Canada was recognized by both Britain and Spain, 

these two countries and their desire for expansion continued to cause concern for the French. 

Strategically placed forts and settlements along the coast insured French dominance. Early in 1699, 

the first French colony in the area was established at Biloxi. With 200 settlers, disease and food 

shortages made success a struggle. Further exploration of the gulf coast and rivers continued and 

more forts and settlements followed like Fort Louis at Mobile in 1702. Some loyalty was gained by 

the French with Native Americans through the introduction of European trade goods. However, the 

French also brought with them disease causing epidemics, as well as the slave trade. It was hard for 

the French to persuade settlers to the area, and the ones who did come were mostly French 

Canadians who preferred trading and trapping and living with the native populations rather than 

settling within a French community. Both the Choctaw’s and Chickasaw’s first encounter with the 

French occurred in 1702 at Mobile. The Chickasaws, having ties with the British, were warned by 

the French to end their relations or suffer war from the Choctaws and other tribes who would be 

armed by the French. At this time, the Choctaws alone outnumbered the Chickasaws with warriors 

(Akin and Bolton 2002:22-23; Busbee 2005:27; Walthall and Emerson 1991:6-7). 

By 1718, the French settlements shifted from the coastal area to the interior along major rivers 

(Fort Rosalie at Natchez in 1716; Fort Toulouse near Wetumpka, Alabama in 1717; La NouvelleOrléans/ New Orleans in 1718; and Fort St. Pierre Site near Vicksburg in 1719). In this way, travel 

from the Lower Mississippi Valley, through the Illinois Country all the way to New France was 

insured (Walthall and Emerson 1991:5-7). New Orleans became the capital of the province in 1722 

and the French economy in this area depended largely on a slave system consisting of rice, cotton, 

indigo, tobacco, and cattle. Although Native Americans were captured and used as slave labor, they 

often escaped, causing more reliance on imported Africans. By 1731, as many as 3,400 slaves were 

in the Louisiana province. Unlike British laws regarding slavery, the French were slightly more 

liberal and allowed slaves to purchase their freedom. This resulted in a large population of free 

blacks who contributed to the economy and culture of New Orleans and other port cities (Akin and 

Bolton 2002:22-24). 

French relations with the Native Americans in the first part of the 18th century were a constant 

struggle. The French monarchy was not generous enough in the funding of settlements and Native 

American relations were weak due to lack of funding for gifts, an important part of native societies. 

Add to this a constant pro-British faction amongst the Choctaws and the relations of the tribe with 

the French became weak with little feelings of loyalty. This was eventually eased when the French 

sanctioned warfare against the Chickasaws as the Choctaws had been requesting for some time. The 

French provided the Choctaws with one gun, a pound of powder, and two pounds of bullets for 

every Chickasaw scalp. In addition, 80 livres of goods were promised for each Chickasaw captured 
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Regional Setting, Cultural History, and Background Research

3-16 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

for slavery. As the alliance between the Choctaws and the French became more solidified, so did the 

Chickasaw’s alliance with the British (Usner 1992:90). 

Other tribes like the Natchez proved not so loyal upon the overbearing French rule. Several 

confrontational episodes had already surfaced between the French and Natchez, but the worst 

episode occurred in 1729. After the commander of the French forces at Fort Rosalie ordered the 

Natchez move from White Apple Village which was capital of their homeland, the Natchez rebelled. 

The Natchez, along with Chickasaws, attacked Fort Rosalie and nearby settlements and killed over 

200 settlers (145 men, 36 women, and 56 children). The French reacted brutally. From 1730 until 

January of 1732, they pursued the Natchez with allied tribal forces until there were virtually no 

Natchez left alive. Those that did survive were either taken and sold into slavery or adopted by the 

Chickasaws (Busbee 2005:29-32; Fairly and Dawson 1988:17). 

After the removal of the Natchez, more unwanted tribes were eliminated. War with the Chickasaws 

in the 1730s ended with a treaty in 1740 where the Chickasaws retained their land, but promised to 

not interfere with French affairs on the Mississippi. By the mid-eighteenth century, the French 

perceived the Choctaws as crucial allies in the exploitation of the region. This did not last, however, 

as the British with the help of the Chickasaws continued attempts to gain control of the region. The 

1740s witnessed more war with the Chickasaws and a larger, Continental war between France and 

England. This was known as the War of Austrian Succession (aka King George’s War to the British). 

The Chickasaws had found a way to divide the loyalty of the Choctaws by winning many over to 

their pro-British position. Although the French forces with pro-French Choctaws managed to crush 

the pro-British Choctaw faction in 1750, they were not successful in defeating the Chickasaw. From 

1753 to 1763, the French and Indian War (aka Seven Years War in Europe) endured where the 

British finally defeated France. The Treaty of Paris in 1763 ended the period of French control in 

Mississippi when France surrendered its colony of Louisiana, giving all land west of the Mississippi 

River and New Orleans to Spain and all land east of the river to England (Busbee 2005:33-34; Usner 

1992:87). 

3.3.2 The British and Spanish Colonial Period

The relationship between the British and the Native Americans was unlike the French. The British 

and most of the European belief of superiority over the native tribes kept them segregated. British 

attempts at enslaving the tribes failed. However, the British had something the Native Americans 

desired -- firearms, ammunition, cloth, iron products such as cooking utensils, ceramic kitchen 

ware, and liquor. On the other hand, the native tribes were needed by the British for their land, 

military allies, and deerskins and beaver skins which brought high prices in the European market. 

Still, mistrust existed between the two for the entire time that the British owned the land. Control 

for the British, however, was short-lived, when the British surrendered the territory at the end of 

the American Revolution in 1781 (Busbee 2005:38-44). 

Spain took control of what is now Mississippi and also took control of Natchez in hopes of increasing its 

influence on the Mississippi River. Under a dispute over land ownership, American settlers at this time 

began entering the state for settlement. The Spanish welcomed them as long they joined the Catholic 

Church. Most of the American settlers in Natchez refused, however, and the Spanish did little to enforce 

the rule. Spain managed to maintain rule for nearly 20 years though until Spain agreed with the 

Americans over the disputed land.
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Regional Setting, Cultural History, and Background Research

3-17 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

3.4 HISTORIC CONTEXT

The historic context of Mississippi is divided into four broad periods. The first period is the 

American Settlement and Antebellum Period which covers the time from 1798, the year Mississippi 

was officially declared a territory, to the beginning of the Civil War. The second period, Civil War, 

encompass the years of the Civil War, 1861-1865. The third period, Recovery and Postbellum, 

begins with the end of the Civil War in 1865 and ends in 1900. The last period, the Twentieth 

Century, covers the history of Mississippi throughout that century.

3.4.1 American Settlement and Antebellum Period (1798-1861)

Mississippi was officially declared a territory under President John Adams on April 17, 1798 

(Busbee 2005:54). By the early nineteenth century, the Choctaw had clearly adopted most if not all 

of European technology. Upon the forced removal of the Choctaw following the Treaty of Dancing 

Rabbit Creek in 1830 (and proclaimed on February 24, 1831), counties were quickly formed across 

the rest of the state. American settlers came from nearby states like Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, 

South Carolina, Florida, and other Southeastern states. Land was inexpensive and available to 

farmers at easy credit terms (Busbee 2005:100). As a result, settlement increased quickly 

throughout the state over the following decade from 1830 to 1840. Most of these newcomers 

settled in the rural areas previously occupied by the Chickasaws and Choctaws (Busbee 2005:93). 

Early settlers to central and northern Mississippi, like J. C. and Margaret Shelton Richie who arrived 

in the late 1830s, passed on their observations. They noted that the area had much to offer settlers. 

Stock did not have to be fed during the winter because rains were often plentiful enough to provide 

enough wild pea vines, grasses, and cane. A variety of nuts, and fish, deer, turkey, raccoon, opossum, 

and squirrel were all plentiful. In addition, there was enough undeveloped land for hogs and 

developed land productive enough to yield as much as “fifty bushels of wheat and seventy-five 

bushels of corn per acre”. Cotton was raised and spun and woven into cloth for slaves’ use. Most of 

the bottom land was cleared for farming and horses and mules were brought from Tennessee and 

Kentucky.

During both the colonial and territorial periods, slave trade was encouraged. The majority of the 

settlers from across the Southeast and Upper South also brought their slaves. Slaves fulfilled the 

farmer’s need for labor production of crops, in particular, cotton, a higher yielding cash crop than 

tobacco. Cotton was a labor intensive crop and required a large work force of slave labor. Its 

production was only limited by the numbers of workers, the larger farms and plantations of the 

wealthy planters, which produced the most cotton, had many slaves. Large farms might have up to 

20 slaves while the middling planter might own up to 50 slaves. It was the elite planter, comprising 

5 percent of all slaveholders, who owned more than 50 slaves. At the bottom of the social latter 

were the middle or yeoman class farmers who might own only five or more slaves or none (Busbee 

2005:106-108). 

Prior to statehood in 1817, a constitution was created for the state which ensured the protection of 

the institution of slavery. The state government was prohibited from emancipating slaves without 

the consent of the slave owner and all arriving settlers and visitors were permitted to bring their 

slaves. Under the new constitution, slaves were not allowed full due process unless a capital offense 

was committed, in which case a trial by jury was allowed. These laws only became more restrictive 

as the antebellum period progressed (Busbee 2005:74). 
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Regional Setting, Cultural History, and Background Research

3-18 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

With major markets in Memphis, Mobile, and New Orleans roads and rivers were important 

methods of transportation of cotton exports and imports for the settlers. Old Native American trails 

like the Natchez Trace and newly commissioned roads like Andrew Jackson’s Military Road across 

the state were important during the early nineteenth century (Busbee 2005:101-104; Crutchfield 

1985:124). While the Natchez Trace was at its peak from about 1800 to 1820, with improvements

made in between 1801 and 1803, it was never well suited for wagons and carriages (Crutchfield 

1985:100-101; Obernuefemann and Thomas 2001:9). The first railroad lines in Mississippi were in 

use by 1830 but were short lines. Prior to 1861, only four major lines were in the state and even 

these were incomplete or lacked connecting roads (Busbee 2005:187). 

In 1810 American and British settlers along the Gulf Coast who resented Spanish rule lead a 

rebellion which established the Republic of West Florida for a period of just 90 days. President 

Madison annexed the young republic on October 27, 1810 and on January 4, 1811 it was annexed to 

the territory of New Orleans as the Parish of Biloxi. The Hancock and Pearl River Counties area 

became part of the Mississippi Territory on December 13, 1812 and Hancock County, named after 

John Hancock, was formed. Later, the counties of Harrison, Stone, and part of Pearl River were 

formed from the original Hancock County. 

No significant battles were fought within Hancock and Pearl River Counties during the War of 1812. 

A small naval engagement fought in the Mississippi Sound prior to the Battle of New Orleans stalled 

the British advance, allowing Andrew Jackson time to muster more defenders and complete his 

fortifications. 

Some two years following the end of the War of 1812, legislation was passed enabling the 

incorporation of the western portion of the Mississippi Territory into the United States, and, on 

December 10, 1817, Mississippi was admitted to the Union as its 20th state. The first act of the 

Mississippi legislature was to incorporate the city of Bay Saint Louis to become the capital of the 

state. The incorporation was completed at the morning session but at the afternoon session, the 

representative from Rankin County changed his vote and Natchez was designated capital instead. It 

remained the capital for two years before the capital was moved to Jackson where it remains

(Brieger 2000).

Settlement in Hancock and Pearl River Counties remained relatively sparse, though, during the 

years preceding the Civil War. During this time, the cotton economy boomed throughout much of 

the Southeast. Although Hancock and Pearl River Counties were agricultural by nature, they lay on 

the periphery of the cotton producing areas, and as such did not enjoy the wealth and prosperity 

other parts of Mississippi enjoyed thanks to plantation agriculture based cotton production

(Brieger 2000).

3.4.2 Civil War (1861-1865)

In April of 1861, after learning that Confederate forces had fired upon Fort Sumter, volunteers from 

Mississippi wasted no time by joining up with Confederate forces. Corinth to the north became a 

military camp. After Confederates were defeated at Shiloh and Corinth a year later, Gen. 

Beauregard, commander of the Mississippi troops, evacuated Corinth and fell back with the army to 

Tupelo. Control of the Mississippi River was vital and General Sherman’s victory at Vicksburg and 

the Union Navy’s victory at New Orleans were both major blows for the Confederates (Busbee 

2005:133-34; Fitts 1962:12). By 1863 Union forces had control of most of western Tennessee and 
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Regional Setting, Cultural History, and Background Research

3-19 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

both sides began a series of raids. After the Union victory at Vicksburg, Sherman began his march 

east across central Mississippi. Union troops lived off the land as they progressed eastward, taking 

what supplies they needed from farms and plantations, and also destroying properties and the 

railroads. 

No major military events occurred in Hancock and Pearl River Counties during the Civil War. The 

Mississippi Gulf Coast remained under Federal occupation throughout most of the war. Hancock 

and Pearl River Counties did not suffer the effects of the war associated with military actions that 

occurred farther north and west in the Mississippi interior, the Lower Pearl River area experienced 

problems from by “deserters, draft dodgers, outlaws and jayhawkers” (Guerin 2016b). To help with 

this problem, both Confederate and Union authorities ordered operations to put an end to the 

unlawful activities in the region (Bearss 1984).

3.4.3 Recovery and Postbellum (1865-1914)

The war was devastating to Mississippi, destroying its primary economic base of slavery and cotton 

production. The other two leading industries of lumber and textile production failed as well when 

mills were forced to close down or were destroyed during the war. By the end of the war, the state 

was nearly $9 million in debt from outstanding bonds and could not be helped by the failed state 

banks. The relatively comfortable existence of white farmers in the state who owned a small 

amount of land and few if any slaves was damaged to such an extent that no social level of society, 

from the small farmer to the elite plantation owners, was free from poverty (Busbee 2005:143-

146).

With the final defeat of the Confederacy in 1865, Hancock and Pearl River Counties shared in the 

economic ruin that encompassed Mississippi. Agriculture, the most prominent economic pursuit 

within the state, was severely crippled by the war. Emancipation disorganized and disrupted the 

available labor supply. Transportation, particularly the railroad system, lay in ruins. Finally, land 

values seriously declined (Scarborough 1979:159-160)

Although recovery after the war was slow, by the early 1870s, farming had gradually spurred an 

economic recovery (Busbee 2005:158). Agricultural products across the state included corn, oats, 

wheat, tobacco, sorghum, and various kinds of fruits and vegetables. Cotton, however, was the most 

important crop. Improvements to the railroad also lead to an increase of its production (Busbee 

2005:158). Cotton was the most important crop and improvements to the railroad also lead to an 

increase of its production (Busbee 2005:158). 

Following the Civil War, the timber industry enjoyed a robust growth because both counties had 

large expanses of timber found in the piney woods region of southern Mississippi. It was the first 

economic interest to rebound from the devastation of the Civil War. As the timber industry grew, 

railroads were expanded and soon began to snake across the pinelands of southern Mississippi. As 

the new railroad lines were completed, northern speculators began buying huge tracts of land for 

timber production. Northern capital combined with inexpensive rail transportation fueled the 

dramatic postwar growth of the commercial lumbering industry (McLemore 1973:2:213-214).

3.4.4 Twentieth Century

Cotton remained the major agricultural product until the boll weevil devastated much of it by 1910. 

Within a short three-year period, the insects had progressed across almost all of the state, 
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Regional Setting, Cultural History, and Background Research

3-20 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

destroying cotton fields and causing financial ruin. To bolster the local economy in the wake of the 

boll weevil, banks and railroads promoted agricultural diversification programs. Crops of the early 

twentieth century switched from primarily cotton to include wheat, corn, and soybeans with 

various fruits and vegetables, and various kinds of livestock (Busbee 2005:184-186).

The stock market crash of 1929 affected the county much like it did the rest of the state and 

country. For the state in general, most Mississippians had fallen into debt prior to the crash. Many 

farmers lost their property which marked the beginning of the Great Depression. Agricultural 

diversification was part of the answer to the state’s economic recovery, but industrial growth was 

important too. It was not until World War II when the sudden growth of military camps and new 

industries put thousands of Mississippians back to work and the put the state on the road to 

recovery (Busbee 2005:226, 235, 262). 

The stock market crash of 1929 affected the county much like it did the rest of the state and 

country. For the state in general, most Mississippians had fallen into debt prior to the crash. Many 

farmers lost their property which marked the beginning of the Great Depression. Agricultural 

diversification was part of the answer to the state’s economic recovery, but industrial growth was 

important too. It was not until World War II when the sudden growth of military camps and new 

industries put thousands of Mississippians back to work and the put the state on the road to 

recovery (Busbee 2005:226, 235, 262).

At the beginning of the twentieth century commercial lumbering continued to be the dominant 

economic undertaking in Hancock and Pearl River Counties. One of the more prominent commercial 

lumber companies in the proposed PRBB corridor was the H. Weston Lumber Company of Logtown 

that had been operating under various owners/partners since before the Civil War. The Weston 

company operated a sawmill at Logtown and a planning mill along the Pearl River and maintained 

an aggregate network of hundreds of miles of logging railroads that extended through the region. 

Additional resources owned by the company included schooners, steamers, and other vessels, as 

well as wharf facilities, railroad spurs, warehouses, and other amenities necessary for shipping 

operations (Guerin 2016a; Hancock County Historical Society 2016b; Mississippi Rails 2016; 

McCain Library and Archives 2016b). The extensive logging railroad network developed by the H. 

Weston Lumber Company and others is shown in Figure 3-1.

By the 1930s, however, lumber production had dramatically dropped due to the Great Depression 

and to the depletion of virgin pine. The era of large-scale lumber manufacture in the project vicinity 

ended in 1930 with the closing of the H. Weston Lumber Company in Logtown (Hickman 1962). 

Following the decline of the lumber boom, agriculture received a boost with the introduction of 

citrus fruit, pecan, and tung orchards in the area (Federal Writers’ Project 2016).

World War II produced an economic boom in the Hancock and Pearl River Counties. In June 1941, 

the U.S. War Department began construction in Biloxi on Army Air Corps Station No. 8, Aviation 
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Regional Setting, Cultural History, and Background Research

3-21 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Figure 3-1: Historic Logging Railroads (after Mississippi Rails 2016)
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Regional Setting, Cultural History, and Background Research

3-22 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Mechanics School. Two months later, the base was designated Keesler Army Airfield in Biloxi and 

basic training was added to the technical training programs provided at the facility. The War 

Department recognized a need for a bombing and gunnery range to train combat crews flying B17s. Forty tracts of land were leased in Hancock County consisting of approximately 30,622 acres

(Figure 3-2). The range was to support units stationed at Biloxi, Mississippi, New Orleans, 

Louisiana, and units of the 5th Air Support Command located at Gulfport, Mississippi. Building of 

the bombing and gunnery range began in early 1942 and consisted of three bomb targets, a rifle 

range, two machine gun ranges, and a ground strafing range that overlapped the gunnery ranges

(Parsons Engineering Science, Inc. (PES):1999).

The site was reported as excess in 1946 by the Army, and utilization of the site conveyed to the 

Navy. In 1948, the Navy granted the Air Force a permit to use the site from 1948 to 1955. The Navy 

continued to use the site until 1963, at which time leases were terminated (PES 1999).

On October 25, 1961, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announced plans 

to establish a rocket test site in western Hancock County called the Mississippi Test Center. On 9 

October 1962, the United States Government began acquiring fee simple title and easement interest 

in real estate for the Mississippi Test Facility in south Mississippi and Louisiana. The Government 

acquired the land through the Department of the Army, as agent for the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (NASA), with funds furnished by NASA. Land acquisition totaled 

approximately 11,258 acres fee simple. This purchase included two of the bomb targets, as well as 

the lower ends of the gunnery ranges. The Department of the Navy was advised by letter not to 

extend their leases and they were terminated 30 June 1963 (NASA 2016a; PES 1999).

To transport construction material to the new Mississippi Test Center, the Southern Railway built a 

10.5-mile spur between its New Orleans and Northwestern main line and the Mississippi Test 

Center site at its own expense “for the privilege of serving the construction and operation needs of 

the test facility” (Herring 1997:56). The Southern Railway used its own labor to lay the track. Work 

began on the line in March 1963 and was completed on May 10, 1963. The line was known locally 

as the “NASA Turn.” The line and the structures along it were constructed to withstand the 

enormous weight and scale of the building materials and structural components required for the 

construction projects at the Mississippi Test Center (Daspit 2016). 

After several name changes, NASA’s installation was designated the John C. Stennis Space Center in 

1988, in honor of a U.S. senator who was a strong supporter of the national space program. Until 

recently, the primary mission of the Stennis facility was to test NASA’s space shuttle main engines; 

however, with that program ending in 2010, Stennis has been changing focus toward testing rocket 

engines both for NASA and for commercial entities (NASA 2016b).

The construction of the Stennis Space Center had a tremendous physical impact on western 

Hancock County. During the 1960s, the United States government exercised eminent domain to 

acquire thousands of acres of land, not only for the NASA testing facility, but also for its 

surrounding acoustical buffer zone. All of these combined purchases marked the end of five small 

towns in the area: Santa Rosa, Gainesville, Logtown, Napoleon, and Westonia. All of these 

communities now are extinct. Structures and even cemeteries, in some cases, had to be removed for 

the testing site and surrounding acoustical buffer zone, leaving this part of Hancock County

unpopulated (Guerin 2016a; Hancock County Historical Society 2016a, 2016c.).
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Regional Setting, Cultural History, and Background Research

3-23 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Figure 3-2: Location of Former Hancock County Bombing and Gunnery Range
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Regional Setting, Cultural History, and Background Research

3-24 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

3.5 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH

A review of historic maps and aerial photographs was conducted, focusing on the Archaeological 

and Architectural APEs.

3.5.1 Historic Maps

The proposed PRBB corridor is located within Township 7S Range 15W, Township 7S Range 16W, 

Township 7S Range 17W, Township 8S Range 15W, Township 9S Range 15W of the St. Stephens 

Meridian in Hancock County and within Township 6S Range 17W and Township 7S Range 17W of 

the St. Stephens Meridian in Pearl River County. A summary of the original Bureau of Land 

Management, General Land Office (BLM-GLO) surveys of the exterior township lines is presented in 

Table 3-5. There are no cultural features depicted on the survey plats. 

Also examined were available historical USGS topographical maps. The USGS map name, scale and 

publication date for the reviewed maps is presented in Table 3-6. Mississippi State Highway maps 

dating from 1928 to 2016 were also reviewed. 

3.5.2 Historic Aerial Photographs

A review of historic aerials photographs from the USGS showed the condition of the proposed PRBB 

corridor from the 1950s to the 2000s. The earliest available photograph dates to 1952 with 

additional aerial photographs available from 1952, 1954, 1967, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 

1975, 1976, 1978, 1979, 1982, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 2007. 

These aerial photos were reviewed and they show extensive logging and areas of mature tree 

growth within the majority of the proposed PRBB corridor with little change between the aerials.

3.6 BACKGROUND RESEARCH

A review of MDAH files was conducted to identify previous surveys, previously recorded 

archaeological sites, and previously recorded architectural sites within one kilometer of the APE. 

3.6.1 Previous Surveys

The archaeological site files at the MDAH were consulted to identify previous cultural resource 

surveys that have been conducted within one kilometer of the APE. A total of 33 sites were 

identified, (Table 3-7, Figure 3-3 and Figure 3-4). Twelve of these surveys cross or are located 

within the Archaeological APE. These results are described below.

3.6.2 Previously Recorded Archaeological sites

The archaeological site files at the MDAH were consulted to determine the variety of site types on 

record within this one kilometer of the Archaeological APE and their densities. A total of 19 sites 

were identified, 14 in Hancock County and five in Pearl River County (Table 3-8). None of these 

sites are within the Archaeological APE.

In 1987, at the request of Diversified Energy Services, Inc., James Lauro conducted a cultural 

resources survey of a proposed 20-foot-wide fiber optic line following the outside of the southern 

boundary of I-10 across Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi. Much of the cultural 

proposed line cut across low lying, swampy areas which were not considered favorable for 

archaeological site locations. As a result, no cultural resources were identified (Lauro 1987 (MDAH 

Report 87-083)).
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Regional Setting, Cultural History, and Background Research

3-25 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Table 3-5: BLM-GLO Summary Information

County Township Range Survey

Date

Surveyor

Name

Approved

Date

Approved

By

Hancock 7S 15W No Date George J Williams

(Deputy Surveyor) 4/6/1832 Gideon Fitz(Surveyor General)

Hancock 7S 16W 1/1/1827 Elihu Carver

(Deputy Surveyor) 12/10/1829 James P Turner(Surveyor General)

Hancock 7S 17W 1/1/1827 Elihu Carver

(Deputy Surveyor) 12/9/1829 James P Turner(Surveyor General)

Hancock 8S 15W No Date Elihu Carver

(Deputy Surveyor) 4/6/1832 Gideon Fitz(Surveyor General)

Hancock 9S 15W No Date Elihu Carver

(Deputy Surveyor) 4/6/1832 Gideon Fitz(Surveyor General)

Pearl River 6S 17W 1/1/1824 Peter Mccaskill

(Deputy Surveyor) 12/9/1829 James P Turner(Surveyor General)

Pearl River 7S 17W 1/1/1824 Elihu Carver

(Deputy Surveyor) 12/9/1829 James P Turner(Surveyor General)
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Regional Setting, Cultural History, and Background Research

3-26 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Table 3-6: USGS Historic Maps Summary Information

USGS Map Name Publication Year

USGS 1:24000-scale Quadrangle for Dead Tiger Creek, MS 1957

USGS 1:24000-scale Quadrangle for Dead Tiger Creek, MS 1996

USGS 1:24000-scale Quadrangle for English Lookout, LA 1956

USGS 1:24000-scale Quadrangle for English Lookout, LA 1968

USGS 1:24000-scale Quadrangle for English Lookout, LA 1993

USGS 1:31680-scale Quadrangle for English Lookout, LA 1954

USGS 1:24000-scale Quadrangle for Grand Island Pass, MS 1956

USGS 1:24000-scale Quadrangle for Kiln, MS 1959

USGS 1:24000-scale Quadrangle for Logtown, MS 1958

USGS 1:24000-scale Quadrangle for Logtown, MS 1993

USGS 1:24000-scale Quadrangle for Nicholson, LA 1955

USGS 1:24000-scale Quadrangle for Nicholson, LA 1993

USGS 1:24000-scale Quadrangle for Nicholson, LA 1998

USGS 1:24000-scale Quadrangle for Nicholson, MS 1998

USGS 1:24000-scale Quadrangle for Saint Joe Pass, MS 1994

USGS 1:24000-scale Quadrangle for Waveland, MS 1956

USGS 1:24000-scale Quadrangle for Waveland, MS 1997

USGS 1:31680-scale Quadrangle for English Lookout, LA 1935

USGS 1:31680-scale Quadrangle for Grand Island Pass, LA 1935

USGS 1:31680-scale Quadrangle for Grand Island Pass, LA 1949

USGS 1:31680-scale Quadrangle for Haaswood, LA 1950

USGS 1:31680-scale Quadrangle for Haaswood, LA 1954

USGS 1:31680-scale Quadrangle for Honey Island, LA 1941

USGS 1:62500-scale Quadrangle for Nicholson, MS 1914

USGS 1:62500-scale Quadrangle for Nicholson, MS 1921

USGS 1:62500-scale Quadrangle for Nicholson, MS 1959

USGS 1:100000-scale Quadrangle for Gulfport, MS 1982
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Regional Setting, Cultural History, and Background Research

3-27 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Figure 3-3: Previous Surveys on USGS Topographical Maps
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Regional Setting, Cultural History, and Background Research

3-28 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Figure 3-4: Previous Surveys on Aerial Photograph
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Regional Setting, Cultural History, and Background Research

3-29 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Table 3-7: Previous Surveys

Report # Year County Author Affiliation Project Map

86-Laur 1986 - - - - -

87-083 1987

Hancock, 

Harrison, 

Jackson

Lauro, James James Lauro CRS of Proposed Fiber 

Optical Line

Haswood, 

Logtown, 

Waveland, 

Lidalia, 

Gulfport 

NW, 

Gulfport 

North, 

Biloxi, 

Ocean 

Springs, 

Gautier 

North, 

Kreole

88-082 1988 Harrison

Mobile District, U.S. 

Army Corps of 

Army Engineers

Mobile District, 

U.S. Army Corps 

of Army 

Engineers

Cultural Resources 

Investigations for 

National Aeronautics 

and Space 

Administration at 

National Space 

Technology Laborites 

MSTL, Mississippi

Dead Tiger 

Creek, 

Logtown, 

Haaswood, 

Nicholson

89-160 1989

Hancock, 

Pearl 

River

Mobile District, U.S. 

Army Corps of 

Army Engineers

Mobile District, 

U.S. Army Corps 

of Army 

Engineers

Cultural Resource 

Investigations: Six 

Proposed Timber Sales, 

Hancock County, 

Mississippi

Nicholson

89-308 1989

Hancock, 

Pearl 

River

Mobile District, U.S. 

Army Corps of 

Army Engineers

Mobile District, 

U.S. Army Corps 

of Army 

Engineers

Historic Properties 

Investigations: Fee 

Owned Lands in the 

Acoustic Buffer Zone, 

Hancock County, 

Mississippi

Waveland, 

Haaswood, 

Logtown, 

Dead Tiger 

Creek

95-253 1995 Hancock Hilliard, Elbert R. -

Letter and depositions 

RE: Heresy locations of 

Choctaw graveyard and 

"Stomping Ground" in 

Devils Swamp

Logtown, 

Dead Tiger 

Creek

96-290 1996 Pearl 

River Mann, Baxter C. Mann & Associates

Cultural Resources 

Survey of Proposed 

Widening of US 11 from 

I-59 to MS 43 North, 

Picayune, Mississippi

Picayune, 

Nicholson

00-227 2000

Hancock, 

Harrison, 

Jackson

Pearce, Kenny, and 

Greg A. Mikell

Panamrican 

Consultants Inc.

Phase IA Cultural 

Resources 

Investigation for a 

Proposed Fiber-Optic 

Line through Hancock, 

Harrison, and Jackson 

Counties, Mississippi

-
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Regional Setting, Cultural History, and Background Research

3-30 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Report # Year County Author Affiliation Project Map

02-254 2002 Hancock Mann, Baxter C. C. Baxter Mann, 

Jr. RPA

A Phase I Cultural 

Resource Survey for 

the Improvement 

Project of Texas Flat 

Road to be Located in 

Hancock County, 

Mississippi

Dead Tiger 

Creek, Kiln, 

Nicholson

02-284*- - - - - -

04-011 2004 Hancock Ryba, Beth A. MRS Consultants, 

LLC.

A Phase I Cultural 

Resources Assessment 

of the Proposed 

Nicholson Cellular 

Tower near Nicholson, 

Hancock County, 

Mississippi

Nicholson

06-233 2006 Hancock Lauro, James Archaeology 

Mississippi, Inc.

Cultural Resources 

Survey of Proposed 240 

Acre Borrow Area, 

Hancock County, 

Mississippi

Logtown

07-383 2007 Pearl 

River Lauro, Jim Archaeology Mississippi, Inc.

Phase I Cultural 

Resources Survey of 

Proposed Nicholson 

Cell Tower Site, Pearl 

River County, 

Mississippi

Nicholson

08-098 2008 Pearl 

River Ryba, Beth A. MRS Consultants, LLC.

A Phase I Cultural 

Resources Assessment 

of the Proposed 

Nicholson Cellular 

Tower in Nicholson, 

Pearl River County, 

Mississippi

Nicholson

08-1448 2008

Hancock, 

Pearl 

River

Yakubik, Jill-Karen Earth Search, Inc.

Phase I Cultural 

Resources Survey 

Proposed 

Improvements to 

Mississippi State Route 

607 (SR 607), Saturn 

Drive to Interstate 59 

(I-59), Hancock and 

Pearl River Counties, 

Mississippi

Nicholson, 

Dead Tiger 

Creek, 

Logtown, 

Haaswood

08-550 2008 Pearl 

River Lackowicz, Robert URS Corporation

MDA-07SR100467 106 

Jorden McQueen Road, 

Picayune, MS

Nicholson

09-0202 2009 Pearl 

River Lackowicz, Robert URS Corporation

MDA-08SR2553338 

3317 Jackson Landing 

Road, Picayune, MS

Nicholson
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Regional Setting, Cultural History, and Background Research

3-31 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Report # Year County Author Affiliation Project Map

09-0384 2009

Pearl 

River, 

Hancock

Thorne, Robert M. Pickering Firm, 

Inc.

Revised: A Cultural 

Resources Assessment 

of the Proposed 

Improvements and 

Widening of Ridge 

Road in Sections 23, 24, 

25, 26, 35, and 36, T6S, 

R17W, and Sections 1, 

2, 11, 12, and 13, T7S, 

R17W in Pearl River 

and Hancock Counties, 

Mississippi

Picayune, 

Nicholson

09-1295 2009 Hancock Lauro, James Archaeology 

Mississippi, Inc.

Phase I Cultural 

Resource Survey of 

Proposed Class I 

Rubbish Facility, 

Hancock County, 

Mississippi

Logtown, 

Waveland

09-1486 2009 Pearl 

River Lackowicz, Robert URS Corporation

MDA-08SR2594390 8 

Emmette Meitzler 

Road, Nicholson, MS

Nicholson

09-1487 2009 Pearl 

River Lackowicz, Robert URS Corporation

MDA-08SR2594431 10 

Emmette Meitzler 

Road, Nicholson, MS

Nicholson

09-1488 2009 Pearl 

River Lackowicz, Robert URS Corporation

MDA-08SR2594584 12 

Emmette Meitzler Road 

(approx), Nicholson, 

MS

Nicholson

10-0159 2010 Hancock Underwood, John, 

et al.

Mississippi 

Department of 

Transportation

Cultural Resources 

Survey of Proposed U.S. 

Highway 

90/Mississippi 

Highway 607 

Intersection 

Reconstruction, 

Hancock County, 

Mississippi

Logtown

10-0472 2010 Hancock Lackowicz, Robert URS Corporation

MDA-09SR2937624 

11093 Lower Bay Road, 

Bay St. Louis, MS

English 

Lookout

10-0716 2010 Hancock, 

Harrison

Eberwine, James, et 

al.

R. Christopher 

Goodwin & 

Associates, Inc.

Phase I Cultural 

Resources Survey and 

Archaeological 

Investigations of the 

Portion of the Proposed 

Tri-States Pipeline 

Replacement Project, 

Hancock and Harrison 

Counties, Mississippi

Gulfport 

NW, Vidalia, 

Dead Tiger 

Creek, 

Nicholson

13-0345 2013 Pearl 

River Lackowicz, Robert URS Corporation

MDA 10NH10045 1065 

River Road, Nicholson, 

Mississippi

Nicholson
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Regional Setting, Cultural History, and Background Research

3-32 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Report # Year County Author Affiliation Project Map

13-0389 2013 Hancock Price, Sarah E.

Coastal 

Environments, 

Inc.

Proposal for Phase I 

Cultural Resources 

Assessment of Selected 

Portions of the Texas 

Flat Road Mitigation 

Bank Project Tract, 

Hancock County, 

Mississippi

Dead Tiger 

Creek, 

Logtown

13-0389 2013 Hancock Price, Sarah E.

Coastal 

Environments, 

Inc.

Historic Context for the 

Piney Woods, Hancock 

County, Mississippi

Dead Tiger 

Creek, 

Logtown

14-0086 2014 Hancock Mikell, Gregory A. Panamerican 

Consultants, Inc.,

Phase I Cultural 

Resource Assessment 

Survey: Portions of the 

Texas Flat Wetlands 

Mitigation Bank, 

Hancock County, 

Mississippi

Dead Tiger 

Creek, 

Logtown

14-0180 2014 Hancock Yakubik, Jill-Karen Earth Search, Inc.

Negative Finding 

Survey: Phase I cultural 

Resources Survey of 

the Proposed Line 07 

Pipeline Maintenance 

Project in Hancock 

County, Mississippi

English 

Lookout

14-0541 2014 Pearl 

River Lackowicz, Robert URS Corporation

MDA #10NH06953, 

1801 Hwy 11, Lot 24, 

Picayune, Pearl River 

Co, MS

Nicholson

15-0024 2015 Pearl 

River Lackowicz, Robert URS Corporation

MDA #10NH17063, 

1801 Hwy 11 South,

Lot 18, Picayune, Pearl 

River Co, MS

Nicholson

15-0110 2015 Pearl 

River Lackowicz, Robert URS Corporation

MDA #10NH17063, 

1801 Hwy 11 S, Lot 59, 

Picayune, Pearl River, 

MS

Nicholson

Highlighted areas indicate those surveys that have been conducted within or though the Archaeological APE.

* This survey is incorrectly associated with the map survey location provided by MDAH.
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Regional Setting, Cultural History, and Background Research

3-33 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Table 3-8: Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites

Trinomial Cultural Affiliation Materials Natural

Setting

Map Ref QUAD 

7.5:

SHPO

Evaluation

22HA566 Paleo Indian/

Early Woodland

Medium Lithic 

Scatter First Terrace Dead Tiger Creek Unevaluated

22HA629 Middle Woodland Light Lithic Scatter First Terrace Dead Tiger Creek Unknown

22HA632 Unknown Aboriginal Light Lithic Scatter First Terrace Dead Tiger Creek Unknown

22HA633 Late Archaic/

Middle Woodland

Light Lithic 

Scatter/

Ceramics

First Terrace Dead Tiger Creek Unknown

22HA670 Late Woodland Medium Lithic 

Scatter/Ceramics First Terrace Nicholson -

22HA671 Historic (Middle -

Late 19th Century)

Light Historic 

Scatter Upland Ridge Nicholson Ineligible

22HA672

Historic (Early -

Middle 20th 

Century)

Light Historic 

Scatter Upland Ridge Nicholson Ineligible

22HA673

Historic (Early -

Middle 20th 

Century)

Light Historic 

Scatter Knoll on Terrace Nicholson Ineligible

22HA674 Unknown Aboriginal Light Lithic Scatter Knoll on Terrace Nicholson Ineligible

22HA675 Unknown Aboriginal Heavy Lithic 

Scatter/Ceramics First Terrace Nicholson Ineligible

22Ha676 Historic (Early 20th 

Century)

Heavy Historic 

Scatter Flood Plain Nicholson Ineligible

22HA936* - - - - -

22HA937* - - - - -

22HA938* - - - - -

22PR931 Historic (Late 19th -

Late 20th Century)

Medium Historic 

Scatter Upland (Ridge) Nicholson Unknown

22PR932 Historic (Late 19th –

Early 20th Century)

Light Historic 

Scatter Upland (Ridge) Nicholson Ineligible

22PR933

Unknown Aboriginal Light Lithic Scatter

Upland (Ridge) Nicholson Ineligible Historic (Late 19th –

Middle 20th 

Century)

Light Historic 

Scatter

22PR934 Historic (Middle 

20th Century)

Light Historic 

Scatter Upland (Ridge) Nicholson Ineligible

22PR935

Historic (Middle 

19th – Early 20th 

Century)

Medium Historic 

Scatter Upland (Ridge) Nicholson Ineligible

*Site location is shown on MDAH maps but no information available.
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Regional Setting, Cultural History, and Background Research

3-34 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

The Mobile District, U.S. Army Corps of Army Engineers conducted a cultural resources 

investigation of approximately 3,000 acres for the proposed Advances Solid Rocket Motors site and 

three alternative areas for relocation of the Hazards Test Range at the Mississippi Test Facility 

(John C. Stennis Space Center) in Hancock County. As a result, no archaeological resources were 

documented. However, the report notes that numerous house sites are present within the area, but 

only documents one structure, the White Church, and recommends additional surveys for historic 

structures (Mobile District, U.S. Army Corps of Army Engineers 1988 (MDAH Report 88-082)).

A letter sent by Elbert R. Hilliard (then State Historic Preservation Officer) to Poss Tanguis on 

September 27, 1995, thanked Mr. Tanguis for his concern over various ground disturbing activities 

taking place around Hancock County. Mr. Tanguis had expressed a concern for these ground 

disturbing activities to affect “stomping grounds” and burial sites (Hilliard 1995 (MDAH Report 95-

253)).

At the request of the Mississippi Department of Transportation, archaeologist from Mann & 

Associates conducted a cultural resources survey for the proposed widening of US 11 from I-59 to 

MS 43 North in Pearl River County. As a result of the survey, no archaeological sites were 

documented. Outside of the downtown Picayune area, no historic standing structures were 

documented. However, within the downtown area of Picayune, several buildings of possible historic 

value were documented (Mann 1996 (MDAH Report 96-290)).

Panamerican Consultants, Inc. (PCI) was contracted by Electrical Consultants, Inc. (ECI) through 

Gremminger and Associates, Inc. to conduct a Phase IA cultural-resource investigation of a 

proposed fiber-optic cable route from Pensacola, Florida to Houston, Texas. The Mississippi portion 

of the route extends through Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson Counties. Two portions of the 

proposed fiber-optic route were identified as high-probability areas. As a result, one archaeological 

site was identified, 22HA268. The site is an isolated find and was recommended as ineligible for 

NRHP inclusion (Pearce and Mikell 2000 (MDAH Report 00-227)).

A Phase I cultural resource survey was conducted of the proposed Texas Flat Road Improvement 

Project in Hancock County, Mississippi by C. Baxter Mann, Jr. The proposed PRBB corridor was a 

corridor approximately 16 miles long, and averaging 130 feet wide encompassing 252.1 acres. At 

least half of this area was existing paved road, so approximately 126.5 acres of potentially 

undisturbed land surfaces were surveyed. No archaeological or other cultural materials were 

recovered within the boundaries of the areas surveyed except for a previously identified site 

22HA632, located on the north side of the Texas Flat Road and outside the Archaeological APE. 

Testing of appeared to indicate a possible early late Woodland occupation. However, no temporal 

diagnostics were recovered and all material originated from a disturbed context (Mann 2002 

(MDAH Report 02-254)).

In 2006, archaeologist from Archaeology Mississippi, Inc. conducted a cultural resource survey for 

Eutaw Construction Co. Inc. of a proposed 240 acre borrow area located in Hancock County. As a 

result, no cultural resources of any type were identified nor were there any standing structures 

(Lauro 2006 (MDAH Report 06-233)).

Archaeologist from Pickering Firm, Inc. conducted a cultural resource assessment of the proposed 

improvement and widening of Ridge Road in Pearl River and Hancock Counties. Approximately 202 

acers were examined. No archaeological sites or historic properties were identified (Thorne 20009 

(MDAH Report 09-0384)).
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Regional Setting, Cultural History, and Background Research

3-35 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

In 2010 A Phase I cultural resources survey of the approximately 77.4 km (48.1 mi) long Tri-States 

Pipeline Replacement Project located within Hancock and Harrison Counties, Mississippi and St. 

Tammany Parish, Louisiana was conducted by archaeologist from R. Christopher Goodwin & 

Associates, Inc. Approximately 33.2 km (20.6 mi) of the project right-of-way was situated within the 

State of Louisiana, while the remaining 44.3 km (27.5 mi) extended through the State of Mississippi. 

As a result, two newly recorded cultural resources were identified: archeological Site 22HA706 and 

Historic Structure HSS-AR09-01. Site 22HA706 was characterized as a prehistoric lithic and 

ceramic artifact scatter likely associated with the Tchefuncte culture. Historic Structure HSSAR09-

01 was characterized as a residential structure built ca. 1925. Neither resource was found to 

eligible for inclusion on the NRHP (Eberwine 2010 (MDAH Report 10-0716)).

A cultural resource assessment for selected portions of the Texas Flat Road mitigation bank project 

tract in Harrison County was conducted by archaeologist from Coastal Environments, Inc. in 2013. 

As part of this project a contextual report was also produced prior to the initiation of field work. 

The contextual report identified one possible post-removal Choctaw settlement and two 40-acre 

homestead clams as potentially historically significant. A Phase I cultural resources survey was 

conducted on the two 40-acre parcels and ten additional smaller parcels. As a result, two 

archaeological sites were identified: 22HA748 and 22HA749. Site 22HA748 is the remains of the 

Tocala Yarba homestead and avoidance was recommended. Site 22HA749 is an insignificant 

prehistoric artifact scatter (Price 2013a, 2013b (MDAH Report 13-0389); Mikell 2014 (MDAH 

Report 14-0086).

3.6.3 Previously Recorded Architectural Sites

The architectural site files at MDAH were consulted to determine the variety of property types on 

record within one kilometer of the APE and their densities. A total of five previously recorded 

cultural sites were identified via the MDAH site file search (Table 3-9, Figure 3-5 and Figure 3-6). 

While not included in the results of the MDAH site file search, the Rocket Propulsion Test Complex 

is designated as a National Historic Landmark, and, as such, is included in Table 3-9. None of the 

previously recorded architectural sites are within the Architectural APE.

The Hancock County Bombing Range is identified as site 045-BSL-6003. Its historic use is listed is

military, miscellaneous, and is associated with the World War II theme. No specific site location is 

given. However, the bombing range’s historic boundaries are known and a small part lies within the 

Architectural APE.

Site 109-NIC-0001 is the Nicholson School (White) complex. It is located at 1887 Highway 11, 

South, in Nicholson, Pearl River County.

Site 109-NIC-0001.1 is the Administration Building for the Nicholson School (White) complex 

located in Nicholson, Pearl River County. It was designed by Robert Watts in the Colonial Revival 

style and built in 1951. It is not located within the Architectural APE. 

Site 109-NIC-0001.2-X is the Teacher’s House associated with the Nicholson School (White) 

complex located in Nicholson, Pearl River County. It is a Craftsman Bungalow and its estimated date 

of construction is 1940. 

Site 109-NIC-3001 is the (old) Alligator Creek Bridge. It is located along SR 607 near Nicholson in 

Pearl River County.
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Regional Setting, Cultural History, and Background Research

3-36 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

The Rocket Propulsion Test Complex at Stennis Space Center received National Historic Landmark 

designation and National Register of Historic Places listing in 1985, for its association with the 

Apollo program. Those same structures were determined eligible as part of the Space Shuttle 

program, evaluated in 2008. As part of the Space Shuttle program evaluation, there were about 40 

other buildings/structures at Stennis Space Center recommended not eligible (Archaeological

Consultants, Inc., 2008).

Table 3-9: Previously Recorded Architectural Sites

Inventory Common

Name

Historic

Use

Architectural

Style

Const.

Date

Mississippi

Landmark

National

Register

045-BSL-6003

Hancock County

Bombing Range

(World War II)

Military:

miscellaneous No No

109-NIC-0001 Nicholson School

(White) complex

Educational:

school, public No No

109-NIC-0001.1 Administration

Building

Educational:

administration

building

Craftsman c. 1930 No No

109-NIC-0001.2-X Teacher's House Educational:

teacher house

Colonial

Revival No No

109-NIC-3001 (old) Alligator

Creek Bridge

Bridge:

vehicular c. 1930 No No

National Register 

ID 85002805

Rocket Propulsion 

Test Complex

Government/

Transportation/

Space

1965 Yes
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Regional Setting, Cultural History, and Background Research

3-37 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Figure 3-5: MDAH Architectural Site File Search Results on USGS Topographical Maps
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Regional Setting, Cultural History, and Background Research

3-38 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Figure 3-6: MDAH Architectural Site File Search Results on Aerial Photograph
4-1 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

4.0 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

In this section, the research design and methods employed during the course of the Phase I cultural 

resource survey are presented. The discussion of the design and methodology includes a 

description of the fieldwork methods and their application in different portions of the proposed 

PRBB corridor.

As no artifacts were discovered during the archaeological survey a discussion of laboratory 

methods is not included. 

4.1 PURPOSE

The purpose of the Phase I archaeological survey is to assist MDOT with complying with Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation (DOT) Act requirements by 

identifying and evaluating all archaeological, traditional, cultural, and religious place resources 

within the Archaeological APE. The research design for the background records check and field 

methods used to address these goals are described below.

4.2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH TECHNIQUES

CDM Smith and HDR each surveyed half of the proposed PBRR corridor by dividing the corridor 

into eight sections. CDM Smith surveyed sections 2, 4, 6, & 8 while HDR surveyed sections 1, 3, 5 & 7

(Table 4-1). This “leap frog” division of the segments was chosen to equally distribute the various 

terrains and existing conditions of the corridor, so as to not give one firm the whole of a certain 

area. It also benefited safety because teams were in the same general area during fieldwork 

activities.

4.2.1 Field Methods Design

The field methodology developed for this project is designed to identify archaeological sites by 

visual inspection of exposed ground surfaces and subsurface testing. Field investigations took place 

April 12 and 19, 2016 and between June 14 and 16, 2016, and were conducted within the entire 

Archaeological APE.

4.2.2 Surface Inspection

In areas where there was good visibility of the ground surface (i.e. visibility greater than 30 

percent), a visual inspection of the exposed ground surface was conducted. Intervals of 15 meters 

(49.2 feet) was maintained in these areas. If an archaeological site was encountered the intervals 

was shortened to 5 meters (16.4 feet). The exposed ground was systematically inspected and any 

artifacts encountered was collected, bagged, and labeled with appropriate provenience and 

locational information, and returned to the laboratory for analysis. Judgmental shovel tests were 

placed to obtain soil profiles and information for any site deposits.
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Research Design and Methodology

4-2 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Table 4-1: Division of Alignment

Section CDM Smith/

HDR Segment Length (mi)

1 HDR 11 02.9

2 CDM Smith

11 0.5

10B 1.9

3 HDR 10B 2.3

4 CDM Smith

10B 3.7

9 1.0

5 HDR

9 2.2

8A 0.9

7 1.5

6 CDM Smith 7 2.4

7 HDR

7 1.0

C 0.8

8 CDM Smith C 2.6

Total 23.7

4.2.3 Shovel Test Probes

In areas where the ground visibility was poor (i.e. less than 30 percent), a sampling strategy 

utilizing systematic shovel probes was implemented. Where appropriate, two transects of shovel 

probes (30 m apart) were surveyed the length of the proposed PBRR corridor. Within the two 

transect, intervals of 30 meters (98.4 feet) was maintained between each shovel probe and 

excavated to sterile subsoil, where possible. 

All shovel test probes measured 30 by 30 cm (12 by 12 inches) in diameter and the soil was passed 

through a 6.35 mm (1/4 inch) dry mesh hardware screen. Remaining artifacts were collected, 

bagged, and labeled with appropriate provenience and locational information and returned to the 

laboratory for analysis.

If a probe contained either artifacts or features was encountered, the interval between the probes 

was reduced to 10 meters (32.8 feet) and continued until two consecutive negative shovel test 

probes were encountered if the site was contained within the Archaeological APE. If, however, a site 

extended outside the Archaeological APE, shovel probing was conducted at 30 meter intervals

outside the Archaeological APE to delineate the site boundary.

4.2.4 Auger Probes

In areas where cultural bearing soils extend to depths greater than 50 cm, judgmentally placed 

auger tests were excavated.

4.2.5 Areas of Special Consideration

4.2.5.1 Hancock Bombing and Gunnery Range

Approximately 9.76 miles of the proposed PBRR corridor fell within an area known historically as 

the Hancock Bombing and Gunnery Range. This area was formerly controlled by the USACE and 
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Research Design and Methodology

4-3 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

within it were 3 distinct aerial bombing ranges. Although the proposed PBRR corridor was not 

within the three bombing ranges, metal detectors were utilized at each shovel probe location that 

fell within the general Hancock Bombing and Gunnery Range, prior to digging, 

If metal was present, the spot was marked with flagging tape, GPS coordinates taken and the 

location noted on field maps. The location was not excavated. A new shovel probe location a few 

meters away was selected and the process repeated. If no metal was indicated, then the shovel 

probe was excavated using standard procedures described above.

4.2.5.2 Northern Section of Railroad Tracks

The most northern section of the proposed PBRR corridor utilizes a 5.4-mile (8.6 kilometer)

segment of the 16.9 kilometer (10.5-mile) Norfolk Southern Railway Spur in Pearl River and 

Hancock counties known as the “NASA Turn.” The line is not currently active and the existing 

railroad bed will be used as a base for new rail placement. This 5.4-mile section was visually 

examined for trestles, culverts, etc. These resources were documented and photographed. As the 

rail bed will be reused, systematic shovel probing was not proposed within this section; however 

judgmental probes were placed within this section and in areas where the roadbed has eroded 

away and will require earthwork maintenance operations. GPS coordinates were taken and the 

location of each judgmental shovel probe location was recorded on field maps. In addition, this 

section of railroad was recorded and assessed as a linear archaeological site.

4.2.5.3 Wetlands

Areas of standing water were not shovel probed. These areas were photo-documented and marked 

on field maps and are included in this report. An examination of the LiDAR data was conducted to 

determine areas that may include cultural landforms such as shell middens, e.g. These areas were 

investigated during fieldwork.

4.2.5.4 Previously Surveyed Areas

According to MDAH-SHPO records, several areas within the proposed PRBB corridor were

previously surveyed. If the surveys were conducted prior to 2001, the areas were re-surveyed using 

the methodology outlined above. Areas surveyed after 2001 will be considered as already surveyed 

and will not be re-surveyed as part of this project.

4.2.6 Site Definition

Several definitions are provided here for clarity and consistency when reporting and evaluating an 

archaeological find throughout this report. For the purpose of this study, all fieldwork and report 

writing for the project is in accordance with the Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations and 

Reports in Mississippi (Sims 2001) by MDAH and Mississippi State Historic Preservation Office 

(SHPO) and with Guidelines for Contractors on Archaeological Investigations and Reports (2007) by 

MDOT. 

According to MDAH-SHPO, a prehistoric archaeological site is typically comprised of three or more 

artifacts. Counts are not the definitive means in determining a site, however. It is more a question of 

site integrity; in particular, whether or not the material is redeposited. For example: a flake scatter 

given a site number if it were determined that it was not redeposited (i.e., it is in the current 

location because the site is eroding down the hill). A site number would be given to the site on the 
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Research Design and Methodology

4-4 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

hill but the scatter at the bottom of the hill would be noted (Pam Lieb, personal communication 

2008). 

According to MDAH-SHPO, an historic archaeological site is any group of three or more artifacts 

that includes at least one diagnostic artifact and/or a feature(s) that are more than 50 years old. 

Features may include below ground deposits and soil stains as well as above ground resources such 

as an old road bed, trade routes, a battlefield, a landscape, a railroad, standing structures, 

architectural ruins, trash dumps, etc. (Susan Olin, personal communication 2014). Such linear 

resources do not have to have multiple features or artifacts in order to be assigned a state site 

number. Such stand-alone features have been defined by Susan Olin (2014) as:

“...a collection of features that are substantially longer than they are wide and unusually are in 

the form of monuments associated with transportation, communication, and power networks. 

They include roads, trails, railroads, ships, shipwrecks, flumes, canals, telegraph lines, power 

lines, and power poles.”

These linear resources may be recorded in segments or in their entirety.

An isolated find is restricted to non-diagnostic artifacts only and is considered to be an isolated 

find, not a site. Therefore, no site number is assigned. However, it is recorded and gets an isolated 

find number such and its location shown on a topographic map (Pam Lieb, personal communication 

2008). 

4.3 ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY TECHNIQUES

A variety of architectural survey techniques were employed. They were developed in conjunction 

with MDOT and MDAH. The procedures included archival and field research including the 

development of an area overview, historic overview, and historic context; and describing and 

evaluating identified historic properties. Each of these tasks is discussed in the following 

paragraphs.

4.3.1 Archival and Field Research

The Mississippi State Historic Resource files housed at the MDAH was consulted on December 8th, 

2015. The purpose of the consultation was to form a basic understanding of the cultural history of 

the region and proposed PRBB corridor. 

The fieldwork consisted of identifying and documenting all properties over 50 years of age within 

the Architectural APE. This work was conducted on April 12th through 16th, 2016. Photographic 

documentation and information pertinent to the completion of the Mississippi Historic Resources 

Inventory Form was collected for each identified property. Additional documentation and historical 

information was obtained from research conducted at the Hancock County public library, as well as 

online resources housed at various federal, state, and private institutions.

4.3.2 Historic Overview and Historic Context

Once fieldwork has been completed, to adequately evaluate the identified structures, they need to 

be placed within a historical context. The significance of an historic structure can be judged and 

explained only when it is evaluated within its historic context. Historic contexts are those patterns 

or trends in history by which a specific occurrence, property, or site is understood and its meaning 
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Research Design and Methodology

4-5 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

(and ultimately its significance) within history or prehistory is made clear. This task was 

accomplished by studying local, regional, and state histories. 

4.3.3 Descriptions and Evaluation of Historic Properties

This task represents the culmination of the previous activities. It involves the application of the 

field and archival findings to the documentation and evaluation of historic properties in the 

Architectural APE to determine their eligibility for nomination to the NRHP. National Register 

eligibility was determined by following National Park Service guidelines (Shrimpton 1997). 

Appropriate forms, including the Mississippi Historic Resources Inventory Forms, were completed 

for the appropriate historic property. 

4.4 BACKGROUND RECORDS CHECK

A background site check was requested and received from the MDAH on December 8th, 2016. The 

background check reviewed the records of previously documented archaeological sites within one 

kilometer (0.62 mile) of the Archaeological APE. Prior archaeological surveys conducted in the 

vicinity of the Archaeological APE were also reviewed. The results of the background check were 

presented in Section 3 of this report.

4.5 NATIONAL REGISTER EVALUATION

As discussed in Section 1.3 above, the proposed undertaking must be in compliance with Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (36 CFR 800), requiring federal 

agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on properties listed or eligible for 

listing on the NRHP. While it does not require the preservation of such properties, it does require 

that their historic or prehistoric values be considered in weighing the benefits and costs of federal 

undertakings to determine what is in the public interest. Section 106 is invoked when “any project, 

activity, or program that can result in changes in the character or use of historic properties” (36 

CFR 800) is undertaken whether federal agency jurisdiction is direct or indirect.

Pursuant to the October 1992 Amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 110 

of NHPA 1980, amended 1992) an “undertaking” means a project, activity, or program funded in 

whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a federal agency, including (A) those 

carried out by or on behalf of the agency; (B) those carried out with federal financial assistance; (C) 

those requiring a federal permit, license, or approval; and (D) those subject to state or local 

regulation administered pursuant to a delegation or approval by a federal agency.

4.5.1 Evaluating Archaeological Sites

The use of Criteria A, B, and C for archaeological sites are appropriate in limited circumstances and 

have never been supported as a universal application of the criteria. However, it is important to 

consider the applicability of criteria other than D when evaluating archaeological properties. It is 

important to note that under Criteria A, B, and C the archaeological property must have 

demonstrated its ability to convey its significance, as opposed to sites eligible under Criterion D, 

where only the potential to yield information is required.

4.5.2 Evaluating Historic Resources

Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces, graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious 

institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved from their original 
PBRR Cultural Resources Survey • Research Design and Methodology

4-6 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

locations, reconstructed historic buildings, properties primarily commemorative in nature, and 

properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years are not to be considered eligible 

for the National Register. However, such properties will qualify if they are integral parts of districts 

that do meet the criteria or if they fall within the following categories:

A. A religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction 

or historical importance; or

B. A building or structure removed from its original location but which is primarily significant 

for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with 

a historic person or event; or

C. A birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no 

appropriate site or building associated with his or her productive life; or

D. A cemetery that derives its primary importance from graves of persons of transcendent 

importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic 

events; or

E. A reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and 

presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other 

building or structure with the same association has survived; or

F. A property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value 

has invested it with its own exceptional significance; or

G. A property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance.

The categories need to be applied only to individual properties. Components of eligible districts do 

not have to meet the special requirements unless they make up the majority of the district or are 

the focal point of the district.